FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Bruno_Brazil]

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.

You don't need to apologise for that, man..
It's a matter of opinion.
We are only discussing it.

it's pretty understandable that a lot of people think Schumacher is the best ever.Well, he has the greatest numbers, doesn't he?

That's the problem about numbers...they can tell us lot of things, but they hide details, and sometimes details are more meaningful than numbers themselves.

As for the age issue...that's not a big deal, I'm "only" 24 but I download and watch old races (and recent too) and documentaries whenever it's possible.

[Big Azza]

But I have an issue with people using more than numbers.

I don't like it when people take a driver's attitude and personality into their assessments. We all show an element of bias sometimes. And that is something I try to stray away from when comparing drivers. Comparing drivers by their numbers is great in the sense that there is no bias, and they are simply matter-of-fact.

That's what often annoys me, especially on this site, people have to throw there into something that is meant to be fact. I've been prone to doing this when comparing Hamilton and Raikkonen. But the matter-of-fact is that Raikkonen is a better and for the time being will always be better, as he is consistently the fastest.

I feel that aura of Senna is fuelled by some emotions. And I want to get straight to the facts. But it is impossible to do so. Consider this:

If I say Senna is a cheat, it would be true. In fact he has apparently cheated more than once. There is no argument that Senna did not cheat in 1990. And what annoys me is that people make a big deal of Schumacher cheating, but seem to belittle Senna's cheating.

What I want is certain concrete fact that Senna is better than Schumacher fulled by no emotion whatsoever.

Until now the things I've been told about Prost have made me hate him, because I've always felt more emotional bias towards Senna. Particularly the 1989 incident. However, the 1989 incident is debatable. The 1990 incident is not.

Hence, I refuse to listen to "facts" which are emotionally biased.

Answer a question: Why is Senna the Greatest?

And then answer this: Why is Schumacher the Greatest?

And then answer this: Why is Fangio the greatest?

What I want to hear is a Pro-Senna, Pro-Schumacher and none of this being overly critical about Schumacher. I'm sick of it. It does not help anyone's case for Senna whatsoever.


And sorry again for dragging on this petty issue.

[bud]

azza you make no sense mate!

[Amanda]

But I have an issue with people using more than numbers.

I don't like it when people take a driver's attitude and personality into their assessments. We all show an element of bias sometimes. And that is something I try to stray away from when comparing drivers. Comparing drivers by their numbers is great in the sense that there is no bias, and they are simply matter-of-fact.

We have to use more than numbers because numbers don't tell the full story. That goes for any sport but particularly one as complex as F1.

People will always show a degree of bias, it's impossible to be completely impartial about things we are passionate about. I would agree that judging talent on "personality" and "attitude" is hardly fair but the arguments on here have been race related, for the most part, and supported by facts.

That's what often annoys me, especially on this site, people have to throw there into something that is meant to be fact. I've been prone to doing this when comparing Hamilton and Raikkonen. But the matter-of-fact is that Raikkonen is a better and for the time being will always be better, as he is consistently the fastest.

I think you're mistaking what is fact and what is opinion here. Perhaps Raikkonen is faster than Hamilton, that can be stated as a fact if you supply evidence. However, saying that Raikkonen is better than Hamilton is an opinion. The same goes for the Schumacher/Senna debate.

I feel that aura of Senna is fuelled by some emotions. And I want to get straight to the facts. But it is impossible to do so. Consider this:

If I say Senna is a cheat, it would be true. In fact he has apparently cheated more than once. There is no argument that Senna did not cheat in 1990. And what annoys me is that people make a big deal of Schumacher cheating, but seem to belittle Senna's cheating.

I don't think you can compare the '89 and '90 incidents involving Senna and Prost to some of the things Schumacher got up to. While I don't condone Senna's actions, I can understand why he behaved the way he did. He felt that he'd been unfairly disadvantaged by being placed on the the dirty side of the track, despite getting pole position, and there was also a bit of tit for tat going on. What was Schumacher's motivation?

What I want is certain concrete fact that Senna is better than Schumacher fulled by no emotion whatsoever.

You're never going to get that because it's always going to be a matter of opinion. There is no greatest driver, only who we believe is the greatest.

[scotty]

And what annoys me is that people make a big deal of Schumacher cheating, but seem to belittle Senna's cheating.

I agree with this, yet am guilty of it myself. I see no viable excuse for his premeditated actions in 1990. However, at least he didn't make a habit out of it over his entire career like Schumacher.

[McLaren]

And what annoys me is that people make a big deal of Schumacher cheating, but seem to belittle Senna's cheating.

I agree with this, yet am guilty of it myself. I see no viable excuse for his premeditated actions in 1990. However, at least he didn't make a habit out of it over his entire career like Schumacher.

Senna's reasons for doing it were two.
1.1989 he had the collision with Prost,rejoined the race and won.As we know he got disqualified for rejoining the circuit at the wrong place.Let's be honest here he done nothing wrong and should of been awarded the victory,thus taking the championship onto Australia for the final race.

Like was said in the press conference the next year if you have a problem at that chicane carry on through and continue,which basicly was saying do what Ayrton done last year and get away with it,To which Ayrton left the meeting.

2.Then came quali and Ayrton for a change put the McLaren on pole.They had agreed before hand to put the pole on the racing line,only for afterwards the stewards to change this to hinder Ayrton.

Looking at all that together if it was me I would of felt cheated.Don't get me wrong what he done was wrong and dangerous and should never of been done,but I know where he was coming from,all be it from a biased point of view

[scotty]

And what annoys me is that people make a big deal of Schumacher cheating, but seem to belittle Senna's cheating.

I agree with this, yet am guilty of it myself. I see no viable excuse for his premeditated actions in 1990. However, at least he didn't make a habit out of it over his entire career like Schumacher.

Senna's reasons for doing it were two.
1.1989 he had the collision with Prost,rejoined the race and won.As we know he got disqualified for rejoining the circuit at the wrong place.Let's be honest here he done nothing wrong and should of been awarded the victory,thus taking the championship onto Australia for the final race.

Like was said in the press conference the next year if you have a problem at that chicane carry on through and continue,which basicly was saying do what Ayrton done last year and get away with it,To which Ayrton left the meeting.

2.Then came quali and Ayrton for a change put the McLaren on pole.They had agreed before hand to put the pole on the racing line,only for afterwards the stewards to change this to hinder Ayrton.

Looking at all that together if it was me I would of felt cheated.Don't get me wrong what he done was wrong and dangerous and should never of been done,but I know where he was coming from,all be it from a biased point of view

Yup, i knew his reasons for doing it already and could see why he wanted 'revenge' (for want of a better word), but it isn't always necessary to fight fire with fire, and it certainly wasn't in this case.

[Jensonb]

The fact that so many lines of text are being generated by this debate is proof positive that it's a pointless discussion with no possible conclusion.

[Bruno_Brazil]

The fact that so many lines of text are being generated by this debate is proof positive that it's a pointless discussion with no possible conclusion.

That's what the forum is for, right?

[Big Azza]

There are a few more controversies surrounding Senna, though. It's just that 1990 is the one that stands out the most.

There is a Youtube video which shows the on-board camera's of both drivers, and I think that Prost was just taking an aggressive line. Senna should've waited for another opportunity, seeing as he was gaining on Prost, so it probably wouldn't have mattered. I don't have access to Youtube at work, but I believe this is the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6qdIRzbukM&feature=related

In both races he was BEHIND Prost. So on both occasions Senna was guilty of the crash. However, Senna should have been penalised for the accident and not the chicane-cutting.

The same thing happens to day - if you're first into the chicane, you have the right-of-way. Prost didn't veer into Senna. Prost took a wide line to make time up coming out of the chicane.

Senna is a World Champion driver - he should've been able to see this. But I like the way how Prost puts in his view: Senna does not like losing. Senna drives so aggressively, which made him the best driver in history. But both Suzuka incidents were his fault.

That said I feel that Senna deserved to win that championship. But he could have waited for the next corner.

I've always felt that Senna is better than Prost. So I am not favouring Prost. But Prost was robbed of a podium finish in 1989 and a WDC and race win in 1990.

If Prost finished 2nd at Suzuka he could still have one the championship. Senna's steering wheel turned into Prost. It appears that Senna was trying to damage Prost's car to radically improve his chances of winning the WDC in Adelaide.










And that is one very controversial statement to make. ( And sorry Bruno )

[Gaz]

There are a few more controversies surrounding Senna, though. It's just that 1990 is the one that stands out the most.

There is a Youtube video which shows the on-board camera's of both drivers, and I think that Prost was just taking an aggressive line. Senna should've waited for another opportunity, seeing as he was gaining on Prost, so it probably wouldn't have mattered. I don't have access to Youtube at work, but I believe this is the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6qdIRzbukM&feature=related

Your facts a clearly wrong.

in 1990 the Pole was on the Dirty side of the track Senna said it should of been on the clean side - he got pole and prost 2nd had the clean side of the track used it to catch up with Senna he then just held on and they collided.

So Senna was hard done by with the Gird situation and he made it clear what he was going to do before the race.

In both races he was BEHIND Prost. So on both occasions Senna was guilty of the crash. However, Senna should have been penalised for the accident and not the chicane-cutting.

Wrong. - don't know what your on about chicane cutting??

he used the escape road to recover in 1989..? But in 1990 as i said Senna had Pole.

The same thing happens to day - if you're first into the chicane, you have the right-of-way. Prost didn't veer into Senna. Prost took a wide line to make time up coming out of the chicane.

No Prost turned into Senna as Senna was already half way up the side of him when he did..would of seen him in his Mirrors. Even the commentators say he turned in Early on Senna.

Eitherway it was 50/50 and he didn't deserve a disqualification meaning he might of been abit more carfull in Oz and won it then.

Senna is a World Champion driver - he should've been able to see this. But I like the way how Prost puts in his view: Senna does not like losing. Senna drives so aggressively, which made him the best driver in history. But both Suzuka incidents were his fault.

right lol?

That said I feel that Senna deserved to win that championship. But he could have waited for the next corner.

I've always felt that Senna is better than Prost. So I am not favouring Prost. But Prost was robbed of a podium finish in 1989 and a WDC and race win in 1990.

Contradicting yourself...?

If Prost finished 2nd at Suzuka he could still have one the championship. Senna's steering wheel turned into Prost. It appears that Senna was trying to damage Prost's car to radically improve his chances of winning the WDC in Adelaide.

And that is one very controversial statement to make. ( And sorry Bruno )

Assuming your talking about 1990 Senna won it when prost didn't finish.

In summery get your facts straight or just don't bother having a rant.

[Big Azza]

He was penalised for "missing the chicane" which meant he was 1 lap down.

missing and cutting are the same thing in my book.

And please - I'm being the Devil's advocate. Someone has to fight for Prost. \

So are you telling me that in 1989 Prost should've just pulled over and let Senna through?

He has a racing line. I can see the racing line he's taking. He's taking a slow-in, fast-out. Like a world champion driver should do.

[headless]

The fact that so many lines of text are being generated by this debate is proof positive that it's a pointless discussion with no possible conclusion.

That's what the forum is for, right?

right

[Gaz]

He was penalised for "missing the chicane" which meant he was 1 lap down.

missing and cutting are the same thing in my book.

Yeah he was penalised by a French Run FIA president, he didn't cut the chicane he used the escape road to recover it was a bullpoo excuse to ensure Prost won it.

And please - I'm being the Devil's advocate. Someone has to fight for Prost. \

Nah your just trying to start a argument i think

So are you telling me that in 1989 Prost should've just pulled over and let Senna through?

He has a racing line. I can see the racing line he's taking. He's taking a slow-in, fast-out. Like a world champion driver should do.

Yes Senna was a god and the proper respect should of been shown...

No of course thats not what i'm saying but he did turn into senna watch the video you posted even the commentators say he turned in early.

[bud]

He was penalised for "missing the chicane" which meant he was 1 lap down.

missing and cutting are the same thing in my book.

And please - I'm being the Devil's advocate. Someone has to fight for Prost. \

So are you telling me that in 1989 Prost should've just pulled over and let Senna through?

He has a racing line. I can see the racing line he's taking. He's taking a slow-in, fast-out. Like a world champion driver should do.

mate stop now.....