FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Gaz]

Yes, it is a very cruel statement to make, and I'm sorry I had to make it.

But Senna died at 3, Michael lived and got 7. That's why he should be first. Despite how much I'd like Senna to win, this is an unfortunate fact.

Thankfully this is an opinionated list so Senna should be first, because he's a legend.
My personal list would have Senna in first Villeneuve in about 15th.

I can't belive you made the above comment.

You come across that you know nothing about Senna or the era he raced in nor the accident it self. There's is strong evidence to support the car suffered a failure which caused the crash.

Schui crashed and broke his legs at silverstone if he had crashed and died he would of had two, but he survied and went on to win 5 more now who's to say if senna hadn't of died he would of won more championships proberly 94,96 and 97 if he had remained at williams possibly more, especialy if he went to Mclaren for 98 and 99.

He was the greatest racing driver to have ever lived and i find your comments disgusting to suggest he isn't because he died.

I think you should learn about the subject before making such sweeping statments.

[headless]

Schumacher is really the best, with Senna second.

End of this year you'll say Alonso!!

[headless]

Hamilton and Vettel are too high up.

[headless]

or the steering wheel came off the car because it was baldy welded we'll never know for sure.

Who's the baldy??

[stonemonkey]

Personally I'd have Clark at the top (but thats just me) Clark was an amazing guy, with an astonishing record. A small fact I heard was that he only ever had 3 spins in his F1 career. Impressive to say the very least.

Massa easily beats that record with just one race at Silverstone.

[texasmr2]

Schumacher is really the best, with Senna second.

The records achieved support your opinion no matter what anyone say's.

But records clearly dont tell the whole story. Schmacher wouldnt have those titles if Senna lived, Senna would have them

You say that as if it is a fact yet it is only mere speculation. I agree with your opinion that Senna would have battled Schumacher for a few titles, which would have been the greatest thing to have watched, yet it was not to be.

[Big Azza]

Yes, it is a very cruel statement to make, and I'm sorry I had to make it.

But Senna died at 3, Michael lived and got 7. That's why he should be first. Despite how much I'd like Senna to win, this is an unfortunate fact.

Thankfully this is an opinionated list so Senna should be first, because he's a legend.
My personal list would have Senna in first Villeneuve in about 15th.

I can't belive you made the above comment.

You come across that you know nothing about Senna or the era he raced in nor the accident it self. There's is strong evidence to support the car suffered a failure which caused the crash.

Schui crashed and broke his legs at silverstone if he had crashed and died he would of had two, but he survied and went on to win 5 more now who's to say if senna hadn't of died he would of won more championships proberly 94,96 and 97 if he had remained at williams possibly more, especialy if he went to Mclaren for 98 and 99.

He was the greatest racing driver to have ever lived and i find your comments disgusting to suggest he isn't because he died.

I think you should learn about the subject before making such sweeping statments.

That's my point exactly, if Schumacher's crash was fatal then he would only have 2. Then he would be further down the list and Senna would still be first or second. He would've still ranked highly anyway because he won with Benetton. But not as high as Fangio and Senna.

And I'm sorry if I've offended you, but my opinion still remains the same. Senna was a great driver. But if you compare his first few seasons with Schumacher's then you'd see that Schumacher has the better statistics.

I've course I can't say I'm an expert, I'm only 19. But I'm sure Jaime would be similar. There's no way he would've remembered Schumacher's or Senna's early racing years. I'm speaking purely on the stats, and what I've read.

Besides, Senna had way more poles than actual race wins. So he was better over a single lap, compared to race distance.

And let me repeat: I I sincerely dislike Schumacher.

In conclusion: Senna was a great driver, and we've reason to conclude he is the greatest. But Schumacher's championships and records indicate he is a more complete driver, and hence should be considered as the greatest driver in history on merit. His commitment to the sport, and maintaining fitness and the fact that he has more than double Senna's championships, show's that he is the greatest.

[Amanda]

Yes, it is a very cruel statement to make, and I'm sorry I had to make it.

But Senna died at 3, Michael lived and got 7. That's why he should be first. Despite how much I'd like Senna to win, this is an unfortunate fact.

Thankfully this is an opinionated list so Senna should be first, because he's a legend.
My personal list would have Senna in first Villeneuve in about 15th.

I can't belive you made the above comment.

You come across that you know nothing about Senna or the era he raced in nor the accident it self. There's is strong evidence to support the car suffered a failure which caused the crash.

Schui crashed and broke his legs at silverstone if he had crashed and died he would of had two, but he survied and went on to win 5 more now who's to say if senna hadn't of died he would of won more championships proberly 94,96 and 97 if he had remained at williams possibly more, especialy if he went to Mclaren for 98 and 99.

He was the greatest racing driver to have ever lived and i find your comments disgusting to suggest he isn't because he died.

I think you should learn about the subject before making such sweeping statments.

That's my point exactly, if Schumacher's crash was fatal then he would only have 2. Then he would be further down the list and Senna would still be first or second. He would've still ranked highly anyway because he won with Benetton. But not as high as Fangio and Senna.

And I'm sorry if I've offended you, but my opinion still remains the same. Senna was a great driver. But if you compare his first few seasons with Schumacher's then you'd see that Schumacher has the better statistics.

I've course I can't say I'm an expert, I'm only 19. But I'm sure Jaime would be similar. There's no way he would've remembered Schumacher's or Senna's early racing years. I'm speaking purely on the stats, and what I've read.

Besides, Senna had way more poles than actual race wins. So he was better over a single lap, compared to race distance.

And let me repeat: I I sincerely dislike Schumacher.

In conclusion: Senna was a great driver, and we've reason to conclude he is the greatest. But Schumacher's championships and records indicate he is a more complete driver, and hence should be considered as the greatest driver in history on merit. His commitment to the sport, and maintaining fitness and the fact that he has more than double Senna's championships, show's that he is the greatest.

Here's where I disagree. Why does having the most championships make you the best? You're neglecting to consider competition and car advantages. The reason I hate the argument for 'the best is the one with the most championships' is because it's so black and white and doesn't tell the whole story, not by half.

[bud]

[
Here's where I disagree. Why does having the most championships make you the best? You're neglecting to consider competition and car advantages. The reason I hate the argument for 'the best is the one with the most championships' is because it's so black and white and doesn't tell the whole story, not by half.

exactly!

[Bruno_Brazil]

I eventually hear people saying that Schumacher was better than Senna. Those people only talk about numbers though.
Well, those who only want to see numbers on a statistics pocket book and make your opinion based on these numbers with no further informations...well, I respect your opinion.

But it would be fair enough check your conceptions about how the german got his titles.

Could you say how clean and honest it was to race with hidden software option 13 that activated Traction Control?
Or maybe the fuel valve issue, that make him get 12,5% more fuel entered. Clean? Ethic? Honest?
What about the launch control?

We can't put Schumacher in the same level of Senna, if we want so, let's (at very least) mention 5 Schumacher's brillant races.
I also ask you to talk about how was his psychological control during his WDC showdowns.

Ah and I also would like to know how Schumacher driving a car that:
has good aerodinamics
has traction control
would pit 3 times in Imola wich is a circuit that has corners that demands torque, here is the importance of the traction control

against Senna in a car that:
was veryyy nervous
started with 86 liters of gasoline and would stop 2 times(he was heavier)
without traction control

How in the hell Senna established in a single lap an advantage of 0.677 over Schumacher.

Not to mention that in 1994, even Schumacher driving a better car, he never beated Senna in a contest to see who was the fastest:: pole position.

That's why I dont put Schumacher in the same level of Senna...
Senna's level, for me, only 2: Fangio and Clark.

Yes, I agree, 7 WDC is not an accident, but let's see the circustances of each WDC.
ahhh and let's also consider how he lost showdowns in 97, 98 and 06. And let's observe carefuly Senna's showdowns.

Then we will understand why the vast majority of the drivers think Senna is the greatest one.

But if you love numbers, lets start this argumentation with Fangio.
Fangio ran 8 seasons and won 5. If you want to compare ONLY numbers, let's go, at Fangio's time the victory doesn't give 10 points, and the 8th didn't get a single point....Fangio won 1 race every 2 races, estatistically speaking. Fangio got 62,5% of the WDC he disputed for.

People used to say that Schumacher has all records in F1. There are some – important – records he doesn't have:
Grand Chalem(victory, pole, all laps running as leader and fastest lap) – Clark (8), Senna(19)
But keep the conversation only around numbers doesn't give us many details.
Let's ignore the traction control hidden software, the launch control that helped Schumacher in Aida and in France; and the refueling issue that provided his victory against Senna in Brazil, etc...I will ignore that Schumacher was 0.677 slower than Senna in worse and heavier car, and had no illegal equipament.


Schumacher has the best numbers in F1. Right.
But he never reached the 3 best F1 drivers' level. Lets remember that he got cold feet 4 times(94, 97, 98 and 03). In 03 he didn't lose the WDC just because he had a good advantage on Kimi in points and car as well.

As for the psychological issue, Prost and Stewart were way better.
At this point, he looks like Ascari, the man who faced Fangio in his best years. And as Enzo Anselmo, the Commendatore, mentioned: “Fangio was implacable when leading and get depressed when in the middle of the grid.”
Nevertheless, Ascari have the record of 9 consecutives victories – and he didn't have a teamate who stoped his car.
You know what? In sui generis situations from 02 to 04, with a team mate breaking the car, 39 consecutives races without mechanical problems, and the large technical advantage he had, i consider that his numbers are bellow that what they could be.

Let's also remember that he crashed in Monaco's tunnel while the safety car was in the track.
Let's also remember the fact that he parked his car in Monaco so Alonso couldn't set his flying lap.
Let's also remember that Schumacher could get Hebert setup in 1995, but Hebert couldn't get the teutonic's setup.
We also MUST remember that Schumacher has never had a tough teamate like Prost.
By the way, you, people who can only see numbers, do you know that Barrichello was 0.1 second faster than Schumacher in the trainings in 2003(on average)?
And that Senna was 0.8s faster than Prost(on average)?
A presentation like Suzuka 89, when Senna was 1.7s faster than Prost is unthinkable.

The statistics always forget to mention that Schumacher was the only race winner who was booed in F1 history.

These numbers enthusiasts usually lack technical details and further informations.
And it's here where we see that the difference between Senna and Schumacher is really huge.

2004:
Schumacher told that he didnt need to push at his limit this year.
It's easy understand why.

You just need to see the great advantage Bridgestone had against Michelin in most of the races.

Ferrari was Bridgestone main costumer, they were almost the only Bridgestone costumer. In other words, Bridgestone made a tire designed for FERRARI.

Michelin, however, had feedback from Williams, Mclaren and Renault.They were the main teams for Michelin, the teams that could “uncrown” Bridgestone. When their tires worked it out, 2 teams(at least) become strong like Williams and Mclaren in 2003 and Mclaren and Renault in 2005.
But this didn't provide an homogeneous and prevalent condition to these teams. The wrangle was there among the teams(including the drivers).

But the things were different in Ferrari, when Bridgstone got their tires right it was such a easy race to the Rossa cars.
And as we witnessed in 2002 (well, without that sad weekend in Austria, 2002, we could only suspect but without evidences) Ferrari worked for only 1 driver.

In 2 years, Schumacher got more victories than Piquet in his whole career. (24x23).

What do I mean?

You've never seen in F1 history such a strong team that raced with “only one” driver.

This scornful and snobbish statement from Schumacher also omits the period of 39 races without mechanical problems.

What would happen to Schumacher in 2000 if Hakkinen finished the races that he had great winning probabilities?? (Australia, Brazil and USA).

When Schumacher didn't push to his limit was because he had a good car. But let's see what happened when he had to push to his limit.
Australia 94, Jerez 97, Suzuka 98 wich he got cold feet. Not to mention Suzuka 03, if Ferrari had made a single mistake like they made with Massa in 2008, Schumacher(who made 4 terrible mistakes in this year) would have lost the championship.

If Schumacher fans insist put Schumacher in the same level of Clark, Fangio and Senna...

...it's ok, but show me one Schumacher's WDC that he had a big points disadvantage, like Nurbugring 57(Fangio) or Suzuka 88(Senna).

Let's see what happened against D. Hill (average driver). Schumacher just lost his psychological control and damaged his car. There's only one way to him not to lose the championship: Run over the the british guy.
And do you (Schumacher fans) know that Schumacher's modus operandi was dirty since he decided the title against Hakkinen in F3?

I assume you know what I'm talking about since you are a Schumacher fan.

Moreover, this “way out” was choosen by him in another opportunities, like 94 and 97 against the average drivers like Hill and Villeneuve.

A last resort that a desperate driver takes. In 94 he was lucky, but in 97 he achieved to be a disqualified vice champion losing all his points! (this is inedit in F1!)

I assume that the Schumacher fans who put him in the same class of senna, clark and fangio know this, right?

I think that if you've watched (at least) since 98, you know all these inedit facts – booed winer (2002), crash in Monaco behind the safety car (2004), “parking lot” in Monaco 2006.

Montezemolo, by the way, said that if Alonso had lost 2006 for few points, you could mention Schumacher cheating skills even though the teutonic driver didn't compete with candour.

Do you want me to enumerate some of Schumacher's cheats?
Let's go:

F3: Macau decision: in the second race, Hakkinen is second place and has good pace, he was about to overtake Schumacher, then Schumacher brakes in the straight so Hakkinen crashed in his back, then he finished the race in 1st with a damaged car and get the 1990 championship.

B-194: he had a very adulterated car, like Bellof in 84, but Bellof lost all his points.

1994: Against Hill – he run over Hill in order to assure his title.

1997: Against Villeneuve - same thing, but this time he wasn't lucky enough and become the first vice champion to lose all points in F1 history.

2002: Against Montoya – Start at Malaysia – The colombian driver overtakes Schumacher by the outside of the trail, but Schumacher doesn't hesitate running over JPM.

2004: Agains Montoya – Imola – Schumacher is being passed by JPM by the outside of the trail, but Schumacher doesn't hesitate, when the german driver looks to the rearviewmirror he acts (again)...he just turn his wheel against JPM putting him in the grass.

2004: Against Montoya – Monaco – when trying to muddle Montoya, Schumacher breaks his car suddenly, result: Inedit fact in F1! Accident in Monaco tunnel behind the safety car!!

2006: Against Alonso – Monaco – Schumacher parks his car in order to avoid the spanish to set his flying lap.

Not to mention Hebert and Barrichello's issues.

My opinion is: There are 3 legend heroes in F1, trully demigods who done things that if we tell to kids and teenagers...they will find it unbelievable. Because the vast majority of them only saw Schumacher, and he is the model.

Probably, if we start to talk about Fangio here...talk about Nurbugring 57(race of the championship), when he got stucked in the pits for 50 seconds behind Hawthorn e Collins, and he managed to recover 11 seconds in a single lap, and passed them both at final of the race...they will call us liars.

If we say here that Clark was one lap behind the leaders in Monza 67(due to a disastrous pit stop) passed the leaders and at the final lap his car couldn't stand his pace but he managed to finish in 3rd. It will seem so surreal that it won't sound credible.

If we say that Senna lost 3 laps in Rio 89 but recoverd 1 it won't sound credible;
If we say that Senna got 13 cars between him and none less than Prost in a title showdown,being 16 seconds behind, but he still managed to win, it wouldn't sound credible.
If we say that Senna made a 40 second advantage on the second place in 89(4 times), it won't sound credible.
If ww talk about the pole positions in Monaco (88 and 89) Suzuka 89, the fantastic race of Suzuka in 89 etc etc it would sound so fantastic that would seem a dream.

Well, that's why I say these 3 drivers are in apart class.

In my opinion, there is group beneath of these supermen who were fantastic during their whole career and were very constant, but didn't have that shining moments like the 3 legend drivers.
The fight is among Schumacher, Prost, Stewart and Ascari, and also Lauda, Piquet and Mansell.
For me, Schumacher isn't in the same group of Clark, Fangio and Senna.

(I know it must have a lot of grammatical mistakes in the text, I will correct them later...If i didn't make myself clear in some point...just show me =] )

[McLaren]

Yes, it is a very cruel statement to make, and I'm sorry I had to make it.

But Senna died at 3, Michael lived and got 7. That's why he should be first. Despite how much I'd like Senna to win, this is an unfortunate fact.

Thankfully this is an opinionated list so Senna should be first, because he's a legend.
My personal list would have Senna in first Villeneuve in about 15th.

I can't belive you made the above comment.

You come across that you know nothing about Senna or the era he raced in nor the accident it self. There's is strong evidence to support the car suffered a failure which caused the crash.

Schui crashed and broke his legs at silverstone if he had crashed and died he would of had two, but he survied and went on to win 5 more now who's to say if senna hadn't of died he would of won more championships proberly 94,96 and 97 if he had remained at williams possibly more, especialy if he went to Mclaren for 98 and 99.

He was the greatest racing driver to have ever lived and i find your comments disgusting to suggest he isn't because he died.

I think you should learn about the subject before making such sweeping statments.

That's my point exactly, if Schumacher's crash was fatal then he would only have 2. Then he would be further down the list and Senna would still be first or second. He would've still ranked highly anyway because he won with Benetton. But not as high as Fangio and Senna.

And I'm sorry if I've offended you, but my opinion still remains the same. Senna was a great driver. But if you compare his first few seasons with Schumacher's then you'd see that Schumacher has the better statistics.

I've course I can't say I'm an expert, I'm only 19. But I'm sure Jaime would be similar. There's no way he would've remembered Schumacher's or Senna's early racing years. I'm speaking purely on the stats, and what I've read.

Besides, Senna had way more poles than actual race wins. So he was better over a single lap, compared to race distance.

And let me repeat: I I sincerely dislike Schumacher.

In conclusion: Senna was a great driver, and we've reason to conclude he is the greatest. But Schumacher's championships and records indicate he is a more complete driver, and hence should be considered as the greatest driver in history on merit. His commitment to the sport, and maintaining fitness and the fact that he has more than double Senna's championships, show's that he is the greatest.

Haha sorry Azza but you've just proved Gaz right 100% you know NOTHING about Senna's early years.How can you compare drivers on stats alone?.Schu had a competative racing car in a Benetton,Senna had something they called a race car although I have my doubts,a Tollman.A car even the great man struggled to get on the grid let alone get into the points.Yet still he nearly won in it.

You also mention Senna was better over one lap ie loads of poles and not so many race wins.Your stats don't show anything about how times have changed ,the fact that reliability was a lot more of an issue back then.Sometimes there wasn't even six cars finish a race.

I could go on a bore you with loads more reasons but I think you should maybe do some research into the history of the sport before saying such things.

ps.To say about Senna dying he's not the best because he died in a race car.Any crash you see in f1 these days a driver stands a higher chance of survivng due to Senna's death.The fact it was a freak accident with the suspnsion rod going through his crash helmet.Two key safety features came out of that crash.
1.Suspension rods changed so they and wheels stand less chance of hitting the driver,something that might of saved Schu or any other driver for that matter more than once in their career.
2.Looking into the possiblity of strengthening crash helmets,something which 100% saved Massa's life only this last season.

[Gaz]

Couldn't of put it better, than everyone above..

For example Senna should of won in Monaco in a toleman this is a car that when Senna got a 3rd place in the 1984 British Grand Prix his team mate did not qualify.

The toleman was proberly as good as a Torro Rosso and it was a wet Grand prix so even with an uncompetative car

In the Lotus in 1986 Senna was getting podiums and race wins when his team mate could mange 9th place.

Wheras Schui's 1994 Benaton had traction controll (which was illigal however they can't prove it was used when infact he proberly did and he needed to ram Hill of the Circuit to win.

You can't go of race wins to view who's the best this is what the F1 drivers think and they think your wrong and so do i.

[Big Azza]

Yes... I see... I will post something here shortly.

[racechick]

I eventually hear people saying that Schumacher was better than Senna. Those people only talk about numbers though.
Well, those who only want to see numbers on a statistics pocket book and make your opinion based on these numbers with no further informations...well, I respect your opinion.

But it would be fair enough check your conceptions about how the german got his titles.

Could you say how clean and honest it was to race with hidden software option 13 that activated Traction Control?
Or maybe the fuel valve issue, that make him get 12,5% more fuel entered. Clean? Ethic? Honest?
What about the launch control?

We can't put Schumacher in the same level of Senna, if we want so, let's (at very least) mention 5 Schumacher's brillant races.
I also ask you to talk about how was his psychological control during his WDC showdowns.

Ah and I also would like to know how Schumacher driving a car that:
has good aerodinamics
has traction control
would pit 3 times in Imola wich is a circuit that has corners that demands torque, here is the importance of the traction control

against Senna in a car that:
was veryyy nervous
started with 86 liters of gasoline and would stop 2 times(he was heavier)
without traction control

How in the hell Senna established in a single lap an advantage of 0.677 over Schumacher.

Not to mention that in 1994, even Schumacher driving a better car, he never beated Senna in a contest to see who was the fastest:: pole position.

That's why I dont put Schumacher in the same level of Senna...
Senna's level, for me, only 2: Fangio and Clark.

Yes, I agree, 7 WDC is not an accident, but let's see the circustances of each WDC.
ahhh and let's also consider how he lost showdowns in 97, 98 and 06. And let's observe carefuly Senna's showdowns.

Then we will understand why the vast majority of the drivers think Senna is the greatest one.

But if you love numbers, lets start this argumentation with Fangio.
Fangio ran 8 seasons and won 5. If you want to compare ONLY numbers, let's go, at Fangio's time the victory doesn't give 10 points, and the 8th didn't get a single point....Fangio won 1 race every 2 races, estatistically speaking. Fangio got 62,5% of the WDC he disputed for.

People used to say that Schumacher has all records in F1. There are some – important – records he doesn't have:
Grand Chalem(victory, pole, all laps running as leader and fastest lap) – Clark (8), Senna(19)
But keep the conversation only around numbers doesn't give us many details.
Let's ignore the traction control hidden software, the launch control that helped Schumacher in Aida and in France; and the refueling issue that provided his victory against Senna in Brazil, etc...I will ignore that Schumacher was 0.677 slower than Senna in worse and heavier car, and had no illegal equipament.


Schumacher has the best numbers in F1. Right.
But he never reached the 3 best F1 drivers' level. Lets remember that he got cold feet 4 times(94, 97, 98 and 03). In 03 he didn't lose the WDC just because he had a good advantage on Kimi in points and car as well.

As for the psychological issue, Prost and Stewart were way better.
At this point, he looks like Ascari, the man who faced Fangio in his best years. And as Enzo Anselmo, the Commendatore, mentioned: “Fangio was implacable when leading and get depressed when in the middle of the grid.”
Nevertheless, Ascari have the record of 9 consecutives victories – and he didn't have a teamate who stoped his car.
You know what? In sui generis situations from 02 to 04, with a team mate breaking the car, 39 consecutives races without mechanical problems, and the large technical advantage he had, i consider that his numbers are bellow that what they could be.

Let's also remember that he crashed in Monaco's tunnel while the safety car was in the track.
Let's also remember the fact that he parked his car in Monaco so Alonso couldn't set his flying lap.
Let's also remember that Schumacher could get Hebert setup in 1995, but Hebert couldn't get the teutonic's setup.
We also MUST remember that Schumacher has never had a tough teamate like Prost.
By the way, you, people who can only see numbers, do you know that Barrichello was 0.1 second faster than Schumacher in the trainings in 2003(on average)?
And that Senna was 0.8s faster than Prost(on average)?
A presentation like Suzuka 89, when Senna was 1.7s faster than Prost is unthinkable.

The statistics always forget to mention that Schumacher was the only race winner who was booed in F1 history.

These numbers enthusiasts usually lack technical details and further informations.
And it's here where we see that the difference between Senna and Schumacher is really huge.

2004:
Schumacher told that he didnt need to push at his limit this year.
It's easy understand why.

You just need to see the great advantage Bridgestone had against Michelin in most of the races.

Ferrari was Bridgestone main costumer, they were almost the only Bridgestone costumer. In other words, Bridgestone made a tire designed for FERRARI.

Michelin, however, had feedback from Williams, Mclaren and Renault.They were the main teams for Michelin, the teams that could “uncrown” Bridgestone. When their tires worked it out, 2 teams(at least) become strong like Williams and Mclaren in 2003 and Mclaren and Renault in 2005.
But this didn't provide an homogeneous and prevalent condition to these teams. The wrangle was there among the teams(including the drivers).

But the things were different in Ferrari, when Bridgstone got their tires right it was such a easy race to the Rossa cars.
And as we witnessed in 2002 (well, without that sad weekend in Austria, 2002, we could only suspect but without evidences) Ferrari worked for only 1 driver.

In 2 years, Schumacher got more victories than Piquet in his whole career. (24x23).

What do I mean?

You've never seen in F1 history such a strong team that raced with “only one” driver.

This scornful and snobbish statement from Schumacher also omits the period of 39 races without mechanical problems.

What would happen to Schumacher in 2000 if Hakkinen finished the races that he had great winning probabilities?? (Australia, Brazil and USA).

When Schumacher didn't push to his limit was because he had a good car. But let's see what happened when he had to push to his limit.
Australia 94, Jerez 97, Suzuka 98 wich he got cold feet. Not to mention Suzuka 03, if Ferrari had made a single mistake like they made with Massa in 2008, Schumacher(who made 4 terrible mistakes in this year) would have lost the championship.

If Schumacher fans insist put Schumacher in the same level of Clark, Fangio and Senna...

...it's ok, but show me one Schumacher's WDC that he had a big points disadvantage, like Nurbugring 57(Fangio) or Suzuka 88(Senna).

Let's see what happened against D. Hill (average driver). Schumacher just lost his psychological control and damaged his car. There's only one way to him not to lose the championship: Run over the the british guy.
And do you (Schumacher fans) know that Schumacher's modus operandi was dirty since he decided the title against Hakkinen in F3?

I assume you know what I'm talking about since you are a Schumacher fan.

Moreover, this “way out” was choosen by him in another opportunities, like 94 and 97 against the average drivers like Hill and Villeneuve.

A last resort that a desperate driver takes. In 94 he was lucky, but in 97 he achieved to be a disqualified vice champion losing all his points! (this is inedit in F1!)

I assume that the Schumacher fans who put him in the same class of senna, clark and fangio know this, right?

I think that if you've watched (at least) since 98, you know all these inedit facts – booed winer (2002), crash in Monaco behind the safety car (2004), “parking lot” in Monaco 2006.

Montezemolo, by the way, said that if Alonso had lost 2006 for few points, you could mention Schumacher cheating skills even though the teutonic driver didn't compete with candour.

Do you want me to enumerate some of Schumacher's cheats?
Let's go:

F3: Macau decision: in the second race, Hakkinen is second place and has good pace, he was about to overtake Schumacher, then Schumacher brakes in the straight so Hakkinen crashed in his back, then he finished the race in 1st with a damaged car and get the 1990 championship.

B-194: he had a very adulterated car, like Bellof in 84, but Bellof lost all his points.

1994: Against Hill – he run over Hill in order to assure his title.

1997: Against Villeneuve - same thing, but this time he wasn't lucky enough and become the first vice champion to lose all points in F1 history.

2002: Against Montoya – Start at Malaysia – The colombian driver overtakes Schumacher by the outside of the trail, but Schumacher doesn't hesitate running over JPM.

2004: Agains Montoya – Imola – Schumacher is being passed by JPM by the outside of the trail, but Schumacher doesn't hesitate, when the german driver looks to the rearviewmirror he acts (again)...he just turn his wheel against JPM putting him in the grass.

2004: Against Montoya – Monaco – when trying to muddle Montoya, Schumacher breaks his car suddenly, result: Inedit fact in F1! Accident in Monaco tunnel behind the safety car!!

2006: Against Alonso – Monaco – Schumacher parks his car in order to avoid the spanish to set his flying lap.

Not to mention Hebert and Barrichello's issues.

My opinion is: There are 3 legend heroes in F1, trully demigods who done things that if we tell to kids and teenagers...they will find it unbelievable. Because the vast majority of them only saw Schumacher, and he is the model.

Probably, if we start to talk about Fangio here...talk about Nurbugring 57(race of the championship), when he got stucked in the pits for 50 seconds behind Hawthorn e Collins, and he managed to recover 11 seconds in a single lap, and passed them both at final of the race...they will call us liars.

If we say here that Clark was one lap behind the leaders in Monza 67(due to a disastrous pit stop) passed the leaders and at the final lap his car couldn't stand his pace but he managed to finish in 3rd. It will seem so surreal that it won't sound credible.

If we say that Senna lost 3 laps in Rio 89 but recoverd 1 it won't sound credible;
If we say that Senna got 13 cars between him and none less than Prost in a title showdown,being 16 seconds behind, but he still managed to win, it wouldn't sound credible.
If we say that Senna made a 40 second advantage on the second place in 89(4 times), it won't sound credible.
If ww talk about the pole positions in Monaco (88 and 89) Suzuka 89, the fantastic race of Suzuka in 89 etc etc it would sound so fantastic that would seem a dream.

Well, that's why I say these 3 drivers are in apart class.

In my opinion, there is group beneath of these supermen who were fantastic during their whole career and were very constant, but didn't have that shining moments like the 3 legend drivers.
The fight is among Schumacher, Prost, Stewart and Ascari, and also Lauda, Piquet and Mansell.
For me, Schumacher isn't in the same group of Clark, Fangio and Senna.

(I know it must have a lot of grammatical mistakes in the text, I will correct them later...If i didn't make myself clear in some point...just show me =] )

Well said!! I think all that too Its why I dont like him and why he's not the best.

[Big Azza]

Wow! Senna did those things?

I like Bruno's point, this generation would not believe you when you all speak great things about Senna.

I guess all the reading I've done (believe me, I've done a lot) is still not sufficient enough. Wikipedia just speaks in a matter-of-fact manner, because it cannot show any favouritism or speculation.

But when I look at the "Toleman" Page on Wikipedia and I compare Ayrton against his team-mate that is enough evidence for me that he is truly a great driver. When I hear news that the greatest football nation on the planet rank Senna as the greatest Brazilian in history over PELE of all people. Then I can see that he is truly a great driver.

And his podiums in 1984 in a Toleman make him a great driver. (And like I said, my opinion was that he was still second best, despite all the blashpemy that I've done.)

I will not accept these "facts" from Bruno as a valid reason to discredit Schumacher from his 7 world championships.

But I will accept these new facts from y'all as evidence that Senna is the greatest.

What is a shame is that I was not alive to see it. So please do not judge me on what I've said. And I'm sorry for offending anyone.

I wish I was born in the 40s or 50s. I would've seen the best of everything. Now I'm sick and tired.