"Welcome to the Heaven Grand Prix Senna starts first and right behind Lauda at second this will be one of the best Grand Prixs of my life..." "And its a go go go go..."
@@MoniFps " THIS IS FANTASTIC James, he pulled double overtake like mika" "James: Lauda seems to be struggling with grip on turn 5 i could of overtook him earlier than Clark..."
The Senna vs. Prost era gave Formula 1 a unique character. It was a time when two drivers had very nearly the same performance and so there was far more interesting competition than most any other time in the sport. The Schumacher era and now the Hamilton era do not have nearly as interesting of competition because there is not a very close knit battle for 1st and 2nd place. When it is obvious who will get 1st place, the race is naturally far more boring. I think without Prost, Senna's reign would have been far less well known, and vice-versa, both drivers were in the right place at the right time.
@Lt. Dan I kind of agree. Hamilton beat him 2014-2015 and Rosberg had a shot to go back to back had he stayed. I think Rosberg wanted to go out on top and prioritize his family while he still is young and the family can enjoy him in great health.
@@easyenetwork2023 I don't know part of me would have loved to have seen Rosberg continue and cement his place with a 2nd title properly over Hamilton. However the lengths Rosberg had to go to beat Hamilton, with his personal life , professionally + the mental beatdowns/drain from fighting Hamilton and Schumacher before that. It makes me feel like that there probably wasn't much more he could have given to stay on top of Hamilton and maybe it wasn't worth the sacrifice with his young family anymore. So he bowed out as a champion and prioritised his family which is completely fair.
@@henrying6608 What are you talking about Schumacher was terrible at Mercedes I don’t even think he had a podium I know he never won. Rosberg gave modern Mercedes F1 there first podium and win. We’re as Mercedes never publicly spoke on picking Hamilton as the number 1 driver bit behind the scenes at Malaysia were they told Rosberg not to overtake Hamilton.
Their stats as teammates show otherwise. When both McLarens finished the race (so no technical failures/bad luck), Senna completely dominated him, just like he did in qualy. When both Senna and Prost were on track, Senna was ahead/faster the vast manority of the times.
Really enjoyed your take on both of them. I'm not sure you could ever say one was better than the other. They were both brilliant in their own ways and imo that was what made their rivalry all the better.
Senna and Prost had hugely contrasting styles that both worked - Prost knew how to get a car set up almost perfectly and knew how to conserve his tyres and fuel. Senna could put in laps that seemed to defy the equipment and had a natural ability few have ever had. Both worthy champions, and they defined F1's golden age. The only two drivers on the grid today that MIGHT be able to match Prost and Senna in their prime would be Alonso and Hamilton, and there are no guarantees of that.
@Crixus Mauperthuis Then we'd have to agree to disagree. Senna's natural skill could be seen in how he took his Toleman to second and closed in on Prost in Monaco 84 in wet conditions, or his victory at Donnington in 93, among just a few examples. This is not to say that Prost wasn't talented (because clearly he was), but Senna was the one who could outlap teammates in qualifying by a second and a half, which is simply incredible.
@@meerkatmusings8450 Don't bother, Crixus is a known Senna hater/Prost fan. He is on every Senna related video doing the same thing: donwplaying Senna and talking about Prost like if he was the second come of Christ.
I actually marvel at the things Hamiltonncanndi with that Merc. In the closest era in terms of lap times, he can still snag his teammate by 3-4 tenths a lap in qualifying and the race. I think if he raced that Merc 110% every lap he could lead every lap, win pole, and take fastest lap more often. I think Hamilton holds back slightly now to ensure he finishes though. I think Bottas is pushing too hard at times, last time at Nurburgring 2 weeks ago being a prime example.
@Crixus Mauperthuis Senna beat Prost to pole a bunch at McLaren, by miles and miles. When his car was capable, he did the same in races as well. Remember, he out qualified everyone by over a second in 1990 at Monaco and won that race going away, I believe.
I can’t wait to die and hear Hunt and Murray commentating over Senna, Fangio, Villeneuve, Moss, Lauda, Ascari and all the other greats I can’t think of off the top of my head
Senna drove with his heart on his sleeve, and that admirable. Not a huge fan of Senna, but respect where its due. I always prefered Prost. Him and Nikki Lauda laid the foundation for the modern day F1 driver.
Thank you for pointing that out. Ayrton said after Alain had retired that he knew Alain was the only reason he pushed himself so hard. Likewise, Alain Prost said after Senna died that a piece of him had died too. One couldn't have been as great as they were without the other.
@@sugarnads This is how it works when a young driver meet a older driver lol, the problem here is that Senna died too early, he could definitely win more 1 or 2 titles, i mean, damon hill the most mid driver win one later in that williams
The Senna and Prost Era serves for Mercedes to understand the importance of the two drivers receiving the same treatment. It was a special Era. Senna's most important legacy was when he raised Prost's arms on the podium. Later he said on the radio that I missed him (Prost) on the track. Two legends!
Ayrton and Alain did not receive the same amount of treatment. When it comes to the team, yes, but there's one person who made things extremely awkward back in those magical days, not just for Ayrton (although he received a lot of flak nonetheless) but for the other drivers too - Jean Marie Balestre and I know why - 1, because Prost was his favourite, 2, because he had a permanent beef with Ayrton (although I've never really understood why but I decided it was a form of racism on his part) and 3, because he was too full of himself and he abused his power when he was president of the FIA. He really was poisonous back in the 80s/90s.
Murray has it right. Schumacher, Vettel, and Senna all share some things. They all are/were easily the most determined to win during their peak, they're all unreal on cold tires, and they all have races where they simply make the rest of the grid look slow. Stop arguing which is better, and be thankful that we get to see Vettel go berserk on cold tires and pull 2 seconds a lap out of Nico Rosberg in Singapore, and remember the day's when we watched Senna and Schumacher do the same.
Senna and Prost are 2 of the 5 best drivers in F1 history (the others being Fangio, Clark and Schumacher, Fangio being the best of those 5 drivers IMO). Senna was certainly the most committed driver in F1 history- maybe in motorsports history. I think that's why most people think he's the best F1 driver. Prost was maybe the most intelligent driver in F1 history- certainly the greatest tactician and technician ever. Senna was driven more by the heart, Prost was driven more by the brain.
Yes I completely understand. I don't know much about pre 1980'a F1, a bit about Niki Lauda and James Hunt that great rivalry, but I don't know much about Clark or Fangio. I still have alot to learn about it. I was re-watching the Belgian, Italian, and Singapore GP's the other night, and I just thought no matter how much I root against RB, I can't take anything away from Seb. I cannot as an F1 and racing fan watch a good driver and say he sucks because he's beating the team I'm rooting for.
If i am an Owner / Manager of an F1 Team --- Between Senna & Prost : if i have to choose --- i would take Prost. Based on that: 1. he is going to create less risk to himself 2. the equipment less chance of coming back with a damaged car 3. less distraction and commotion to the team However : 1 lap to qualify OR last lap of the race, you'd probably take Senna. Either way you can't go wrong it's like saying 1A , 1B.
I think all Murray was alluding to was that Vettel can be ruthless like Ayrton was. Remember Malaysia 2013 as one example. To the age old, never ending Prost Senna debate - Senna in qualifying trim was without equal, Prost himself would admit as much. But when it came to racecraft, car setup and race pace and at a wider level, championship campaigns, then I would say it was Prost who had the edge. Remember we never saw Senna in his late 30s like we saw Prost (then fighting Senna). Had we seen Senna lose the 1994 title to Schumacher - which I think we would have - Senna may not be regarded with the esteem he is today. Jackie Stewart when interviewed in 1993 said that Prost was the better, more complete driver.
beeDUB75 So you think we would have seen Senna lose to MS in 94? Wow so Damon Hill would have beaten AS as he was only 2 points behind MS.......what an amazing judgement that is. I will turn the point around and say that if MS had proper competitors like AS or AP during his career for sure he wouldn't have all the records he achieved and have so many dupe fans thinking he was the best ever. MS is on record stating that head to head he would have lost to AS had he lived (Adelaide 94) - but you know better right?
Mauricio Garcia I know Schumacher had respect for Senna and would not have overtaken him on the warm up lap in Britain like he did Hill - whom he had little or no respect for. That being the case, he would not have been black flagged, would not have missed two races and would have been well clear in the championship. Prior to the British GP Schumacher was nearly double Hill's points tally. Hill only got as close as he did because of Schumacher's ban - and being in practice, if not literal, a 1 car team for much of the season. This though is all futile as we will never know for sure. All I will say is Senna would have been beaten eventually - if not 94 then soon after and most likely would not be regarded with such esteem as he is now - the fallen hero. All the fallen are - Villeneuve, Senna and now Bianchi. I totally agree with you on the point that if Schumacher had proper competition all his career (instead of just 1998-2000) the record books would look a lot different. If either Prost or Senna never raced the other would have set records that would never be beaten.
If MS didn't get banned???? The facts are the facts and he would have been banned and lost 2 races for his stupid attempt on Hill - and if Senna was alive he would have done the same thing. Oh wait, let me recall this straight, he did do the same thing in Brazil and was not called in for the 10 sec penalty - have you ever asked yourself how come?? He would have never won that race if the same rules had applied in Brazil as when they were applied in Britain - very strange. Also, it was a proven fact (not a conspiracy like many MS fans like to paint) that Schumy had traction control. The FIA found this mid-season and did nothing about it, which was outrageous. Interesting enough AS saw this already at Aida and it took the FIA several races to discover this from the Benetton. So yes MS had a chance of beating AS in 94....LOL, hell I always ask myself how come all his cheats go unchecked by his fans during all these years? Dude in 94 Benetton/MS cheated big time. The traction control was discovered by the FIA, that means MS should have been disqualified for the championship and period. Moreover, how did he pass AS in the pits? Perhaps because of the missing fuel rig that later was to blame for the fire at the pit stop in Hockenhheim on MS team mate. So no conspiracy there about this cheating too, the numbers don't lie. He put 2 sec less fuel and stayed for 2 laps longer then AS on 2 pit stops and with traction control and yet Senna was closing the gap from 10 sec to 4.5 when he spun. And you are telling me that MS could have beaten AS in 94/95??? Give me a break man. The ultimate proof that MS cheated big time in 94 is his results, I won't provide them here but you can do the math yourself. MS win/pole ratio that year are his 2nd best EVER in all of his 18 years of F1 racing. yes that's right, higher then 95 when he had Renault engines and even higher then his second best season with Ferrari in 2002. Now that we got past 94 let's look at 95. Damon Hill, a piece of shit driver and world champion by luck put 4 wins on Schumy. Do you really think that AS would have managed the same???? I find MS fans delusional over this 95 season when they say for sure that MS would have beaten AS as if Senna was Hill. Ayrton beat Alain Prost at his peak and in the same car by having more wins then him in 88/89 and in 93 being 2 sec a lap slower Prost outscored Senna by only 2 races but with Schumy in 95 it would have been different. Seriously, what a joke. It's not a brain stretch to see that AS would have beaten MS in 94/95 and if Hill and Villeneuve were champions in 96/97 being infinitely worse then Senna the picture of the eternal "What if Senna had lived" becomes easy to grasp. AS would have nailed 94/95/96/97 the same way MS nailed 5 back to back championships - and that is because AS's best years were still ahead of him and sadly due to their age difference we would have never seen both men at their very best neck to neck. So what does this all means, in short MS's first title would have only come in 2000 and the records would have all if not mostly been under Senna's name. The end title score between these guys if Senna retired in 97 (however he planned to retire by the year 2000 and in a Ferrari) would have been 7x5 (at least) and this debate would have never existed, very much the same way people don't really debate on who was better between Senna and Prost. And lastly, I also do realize that yes MS would have beaten AS many times and if AS raced beyond 97 then yes from that point on that's where Michael would have become the more dominant driver just like Alonso beat him in 2005/06.
Prost is a legend because he managed to beat Senna. Senna is a legend because he managed to beat prost. Even when they were at the highest rivalry ,insulting each other by the press and TV , they had a lot of respect for the driver the other was ..They both give us the best fights in F1 history . Fangio? Schumacher? Vettel? Maybe some would have been faster in the mc laren of 88 and 89 who knows ? But for me they're not high as Ayrton/Alain because of their less strong opponents. excse my englsh
Prost actually outscored Senna at Mclaren in both 1988 and 1989. However, the system back then only counted in the 11 best results. So Senna won the 1988 championship. In 1988, Prost finished every race first or second except Italy and Britain, where his engines died.
Prost outscore Senna in 1989 because Balestre stole 2 wins from Senna (the two he needed to win the championship before even the last race): Suzuka and Estoril (when a DQ Mansel took him out and Balestre did nothing). Senna is the rightful champion of 1989 and anyone without a bias acknowledge that.
"Senna was obsessed with winning in a way that I've never come across with anybody else or any other driver" - Murray Walker Senna never cared about being second or third, if he wanted to "play smart" he would've outscored Prost easily but he simply didnt care about anything else but winning, you could clearly see that on Monaco 88 and Brazil GP 1994 when he went out of the race cuz he didnt accept to be 2nd to Schumacher even if that was only the first race and any other driver wouldnt care that much about being 2nd. His mind was unique he knew he could score points easily but he wanted to be champion by winning by being the 1st.
Eddie Cheever once said of Prost..."You don't worry about him in qualifying, you worry when he's fastest in the race morning warmup. Then you know he has a good race setup". Senna himself knew that of all the top drivers he faced in F1 including Piquet, Mansell, Rosberg, Berger, Alboreto, Lauda and Schumacher, Prost was the one he had to beat to be the best. He did that, but in equal cars Prost also beat him. They both had their strengths and both had their weaknesses.
Prost had more points than Senna in 1988, beat Senna in 1989 and came close in the Ferrari, in fact Senna felt so threatened that he resorted to deliberately crashing to stop Prost from winning, Prost still won 4 very deserved championships while 2 of Senna`s 3 were a bit questionable, still a great driver but he believed he had the god given right to win and did not like to lose
@@hettonmassive50 He is forgetting that Balestre robbed 2 wins from Senna in 1989 (the two he needed to win the championship before even the last race): Suzuka and Estoril (when a DQ Mansel took him out and Balestre did nothing). Senna is the real 1989 champion.
"Senna was obsessed with winning [...] I won't say at all costs, but pretty nearly at all costs." This is why I prefer Prost over Senna. Senna would have ran you over if neccessary. And I also tend to think that this somehow contributed to the fact that Senna is now dead while Prost is alive and well. And it is a bitter irony that in the end Senna died due to a technical failure that could have happened to everyone - including Prost.
If you are suggesting that Prost needed to drive at 99% a Professor to beat Senna who did that at 110% being only the 'pupil' than you are not putting them equal. Read your comment and see that you are contradicting yourself. That is why you agree with someone who prefers Prost. BTW I don't agree with all that crap on Prost driving at 90% etc. Any F1 driver gave 100% to win in their own way.
Senna wasn’t his pupil at all. I agree with the 90% bullshit no way he could have beat Mansell who’s commitment was so high he pushed his Lotus till he passed out from heat exhaustion or Senna and his style of banzai laps attacks.
That said, when it comes to sport, regardless of the discipline, the “modern era” argument remains a universal, and often, heated one. In my observation, too often what the expounders, mostly young people, of the position that the “current” athlete - or driver, in this case - of today would dominate those athletes of the past fail to consider, is:
Senna fanboys are many and have spread because of the Media influence = brazilian and world press favoured Senna , and Prost came to be an underrated pilot in their views. And let me tell you in details, Ayrton Senna was very very concerned about the media views about him. In addition, Senna had by far the best promotion scheme in the sports media of F1 World. Since the car races first categories, Senna had a solid promotion, advertising and clipping scheme, and even visited newspaper newsrooms, which at the time was a novelty. In Formula 1 , He was the first pilot to organize press conferences at the racetracks, So Avoiding to grant endless interviews , and at the same time He had better control over what he said not to be misunderstood. He was famous for the long pauses he made in his declarations , so that he could measure the words to be said. Senna was also a compulsive reader of what was published in the media and because of that He had indisposed with journalists throughout his career - e.g. with the Italian Giorgio Piola , Senna came to exchange shoves at the Media Center of a racetrack.
Your statement seems so strange but also very accurate. Senna didn’t believe he could die and so he sent it in every corner on every track he raced on, its very ironic that he died due to a technical failure that could’ve happened to anyone.
Vettel is a three time world champion, and three in a row to boot. That's beyond "good". Senna was a great driver, no doubt. But to deny Vettel his rightful place among the greats is a huge oversight. To me, Vettel's style incorporates the best of Senna and Prost, to me that makes him better than the both of them. Hope you can live with that.
It is impossible to compare this f1 with Prost and Senna and today. The role of drivers was much more important. So the best driver of all time is Juan Manuel Fangio. 5 titles in 1950's = 10 titles in 2010's. It is impossible that Vettel win like this in 80's
I think i did not understand myself. 100% agree with you about Fangio or Vettel and the other. An F1 world champion had already beat the best pilot of the world because the best f1 driver are in F1. But no one had in his history such rivalry with only one opponent . Even in 90-91-93, Senna and Prost where driving to be the champion but also,or maybe especially to beat the other. My English is to poor to be sure of what i try to say is the thing i think. Sorry
If Senna and Prost had been team mates a few yrs earlier , when prost was arguably more hungry ,then Senna s attitude to winning would nt have yielded the same results
Exactly right! Some ignorant youtubers don't know what they're writing and don't realize that they contradict themselves I agree with your list of F1 drivers.
You say that, but people said the same thing about Hamilton, when he first went to Mclaren, Vettel clearly has mad skills, to be so dominant over his teammate Webber who is no slouch.
Is that the way to reply a guy who has not your same opinion? That's why I hate Senna lovers, they're so narrow minded. I think Prost is better than Senna as well.
Marcelo, that hate will burn you up. Prost was good, very calculated and consistent, but Senna was faster and more determined to win. Both brought the best out of each other. Senna was sad when Prost retired (after 1993), and Prost was even sadder when Senna died. And at the end of the day were just fans, but if you ask past and present F1GP drivers they would overwhelmingly say that Senna was the best ever and none say that Prost was, it's always out of Jimmy Clark, Fangio, Schumacher, and Senna.
I'm with you. Sebastian Vettel's car at 81mph weighs double what it does standing still. Fangio had no safety equipment, probably no seatbelts. Senna had big tires and a massive set of balls. Trying to argue which one is better is pointless, because there is no possible way to get the together to race. Personally for me Senna is the greatest, that being said, Fangio was very skilled with a car as was Clark, and Moss.
Well I can definitely agree with you on Vettel giving the best feedback. But as far as my other point, I don't think anyone on the grid could do it. I will concur, the gap between Prost's 84 McLaren and Senna's Toleman is less that that of the RB9 and the Marussia, but I'm just trying to make a point. I just read my other comment and realized I made it sound like Newey is doing all the work. As I said, Vettel is a great driver, coming from a Ferrari fan and McLaren right after them.
People always play down Senna purely due to the fact that so many like him, which doesn't make them right in any sense. Same thing can be said about Jimi Hendrix with his talent, you'd be surprised as to how many people think he isn't that great, but it's not because they actually think he isn't good, it's because they're tired of hearing how great he is.
That said, while I never had the privilege to see my #1 guy Senna race in person, nobody I ever saw at that Long Beach track was more intense, accurate, or downright brilliant than Gilles Villeneuve.
And none of these guys were a match for Gilles Villeneuve, Gilles was voted the best by his fellow drivers for the 1980 season. He finished the 1980 season with 2 fifths and 2 sixth places (thats 6 points the old fashion way). I would put Gilles up against anybody in any car of any era. If you wanna talk car control in any weather, and fearlessness. Gilles was the guy. I think he unofficially set a record for passing the most cars on the first lap (legend has it...) throughout the 1980 season.
I think Senna was the best! but Schumi worked so hard for being the best of the grid at his time! almos rebuild Scuderia Ferrari from ashes! Senna will be the best for all time! but Schumie is close!
Fangio, or Jim Clark considering their equipment and what they were facing in terms of danger, in my opinion are better than Senna , but saying this you can't compare any drivers from different era's the cars change if you put Fangio in a modern F1 car (he wouldn't fit) and wouldn't know what any of the buttons were) and vice versa. Senna in mercedes w196, he would struggle so I think it's wrong to say any F1 driver is the greatest and comparing them to others because you can't.
Why is everyone talking about the Red Bull? If the Red Bull is the only thing capable of winning, why did Vettel win in Monza 08? Why doesn't Mark Webber coming second every race? Did you see the Abu Dhabi GP last year? Vettel was twice at the back of the field and fought his way up. No seriously, you have no idea, what you are talking about.
Compared to his contemporaries, Fangio was undoubtably the best F1 driver ever. However, F1 drivers have become much quicker in general. Their training has become better, their physical fitness and mental fitness are coached, monitored and trained the whole time. I have absolutely no doubts that any modern F1 driver would completely destroy Fangio on a racetrack. In the same way I think Senna wouldn't be as fast as e.g. Vettel.
Drivers aids came along in 92 and was banned from 94 on. These days we have Power Steering, Flappy Paddles and far greater downforce than anything made back then
Fangio only had to beat Farina, Ascari, Trintigant, Moss, Behra, Brooks, Musso, Collins and Hawthorne. These are I believe the top 10 drivers at the time and all very good and given the lack of any safety eqipement very brave. Vettel has beaten 4 world champions, not counting Schumacher. Anyone who says he has had it easy or it is all the car is an idiot. Schumacher certainly did not have an easy ride either.
Vettel wins just because he has the best car? what bull shit, back in 2010 he did not have the best car but he won his first drivers championship and constructors because he was a talented driver.
You are simply being unfair. Schumi had Ferrari spec bridgestones.... the same as Ruebens. Vettel wins because he's getting the most out of his car, and because his car happens to be the best, but it's just a stationary machine without him in it.
Julian, consider yourself lucky to be able to see Vettel in his prime, although I still think that he's gonna get better. I just missed being able to watch the great Jim Clark and even though I can watch some grainy old videos of him or Fangio for that matter, I just don't get the same feel for their driving skills as I have for anyone who drove from 1975 on. I'm not saying these guys were not good, I just find it harder to confidently assess them because it was largely a missed era for me.
If serena had lived would shumacher of been so good. Put another way would have got away with much as he did but the senna was reckless and dangerous with his move at the Japanese grand prix 1990 despite that he was highly competitive flawed genius in the car
It is just an opinion. I think that Prost and Senna was very equal that's why we look for the best of two of them. Schumacher was a good driver but in 80's he would have got just one or two titles..
Senna had his fair share of good cars and pretty much always had an engine advantage when endowed with Honda power. Hamilton and Alonso are great drivers that are regularly beaten by Vettel. Time is on Vettel's side and his accomplishments so far are ahead of Michael Schumacher's and Ayrton Senna's at similar stages in their career's. You may not like him, but to deny that he is a superior talent is being ignorant to the obvious!
What if all the competitors were of the same chronological age today? To somehow argue that Senna - given proper periods in which to test, develop, observe, and practice with the F1 cars of today - wouldn’t be competitive, much less win race after race, is ludicrous! See Schumacher’s interview, during which he discusses Ayrton’s brilliance and competitive drive. Senna beat Schumacher several times prior to his death….May he rest
"not yet shown any true sign of greatness". Oh I don't know but being a three time world champion at a record young age says a thing or two.He holds all the the youngest ever records save for the fastest race lap(Nico Rosberg) and the saying goes that the best driver ends up in the best car. Alonso sure shined in his Renault days. That he never managed to match his pole and wins from 2005 & 2006 means the Renault was the best car he ever drove Vettel has more wins than all those three "greats"
I appreciate what you're saying. But my point is Senna is in a league of his own. The guy won races in cars by far inferior. For him, blaming the car, the mechanics or the weather was not an option. He just wanted to win, more than any other driver. He once won a race with a gearbox stuck in 6th gear. As I said Vettel is a heck of a driver but Senna made the impossible possible. Anyway, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Prost was a more reliable driver, softer with the engine: it makes a difference at the end of the season. Senna had the capibility too push out of the car's limits, but too much sometimes
One race, one year. You are cherry picking. How do you know Alain, after seeing he was unlikely to beat Senna's time, didn't simply do enough to qualify second? Answer is, you don't.
@Peter Johnson sure he was faster, but not necessarily always by the gap in qualifying times. As stated earlier, how do you know that Alain, knowing he probably couldn't beat Senna's time, didn't simply do enough to beat third? Qualifying 1.5 seconds faster at Monaco, doesn't mean that either driver was on their absolute limit. I agree, Senna was the better qualifier. You are right to call him faster. But I dispute the true gap between the two in qualifying was always as it seemed. Enjoy.
You're viewing this for a different perspective. As today's drivers are much safer and there is basically no huge risk in driving, when Senna was racing, he and the people at that time didn't know this could be possible. However, comparing 2 racing drivers from different ages of motorsport is done by the glimpse they give of their attitude towards what they do. Vettel doesn't care who you are as long as he is racing you and will do anything to beat you and win. Reminds you of anyone?
Vettel is a good driver. I'm not a fan of him (I prefer Kimi) but you still have to give him credit. Him and Shumi dominate the Race of Champions. Grosjean is a good driver too.
Ayrton Senna he was the best driver not Michael Schumacher dont compare Michael Schumacher with Ayrton Senna..if senna would have not died in that accident in 1994, Michael Schumacher would never have won that race and later that six world world titles..,He won that six world world titles because at that time no other cars are faster than Ferrari F1 cars and later u can see he lost..because technology is changing..,and Michael Schumacher always cheat u can go through his history of races.. MURRAY WALKER always support Michael Schumacher..,
You have to be a good driver to even have a shot at Formula 1, the problem is you also have to have quite a bit of money and i think the money aspect is getting in the way a bit
I personally don't think that Senna's driving style would get him anywhere in modern F1 and vice versa. Sebastian wouldn't get anywhere in 1987 Formula 1. It's a different time and a different game. I feel that if all the variables were removed so it was equal, he would win. As long as Vettel has a half decent car, he will be contending for a championship, but I would not call him a superior talent to Senna. The argument could be made that F1 is easier than it once was.
He may be driving for the team you are rooting for before you know it. Unless there is a big change in Ferrari's fortunes next year ( ie they are totally dominant), I think that they (Ferrari) will make a big push to sign Vettel in 2016. Maybe they can sell him on "replicate what Schumacher did"?, who knows it might work, afterall Schumacher was his hero.
i dont totaly agree, senna was definitely better then vettel(better then everybody in my opinion), but senna was in every qualy amazingly fast. and vettel has that ability to, to sometimes in his last fast qualy lap beat every body else, but i agree that hamilton and alonso are more complete drivers
How can a comparison between two drivers be insulting?? And how can you know, whether today's pilots would not take that risk, to win? They just don't have to, so you can't blame them for that, Just like you can't blame Ayrton for wearing a fireproof overall contrary to guys like Fangio.
Maybe I didn't make my point clear enough and I apologize. You said take away the technology, like what, carbon brakes or chassis, semi auto gearbox, advanced aerodynamics? I mean Juan Manuel Fangio, Alberto Ascari, Jimmy Clark and Jackie Stewart's era, these guys didn't even have proper fuel cells (this is technology too). And these guys went after wins as hard as anyone, including Senna. I didn't mean Senna was wimpish, we all know isn't true
Now murray will narrate Senna's careers and God will hear him live. Thanks a lot Mr Walker
Walker will narrate Senna vs Lauda in the heaven...
"Welcome to the Heaven Grand Prix Senna starts first and right behind Lauda at second this will be one of the best Grand Prixs of my life..." "And its a go go go go..."
@@indominusrex1652 And then Clark overtake them both.
@@MoniFps " THIS IS FANTASTIC James, he pulled double overtake like mika"
"James: Lauda seems to be struggling with grip on turn 5 i could of overtook him earlier than Clark..."
The Senna vs. Prost era gave Formula 1 a unique character. It was a time when two drivers had very nearly the same performance and so there was far more interesting competition than most any other time in the sport. The Schumacher era and now the Hamilton era do not have nearly as interesting of competition because there is not a very close knit battle for 1st and 2nd place. When it is obvious who will get 1st place, the race is naturally far more boring. I think without Prost, Senna's reign would have been far less well known, and vice-versa, both drivers were in the right place at the right time.
Vettel Hamilton is really underrated as a rivalry. Their 2017-2018 battle was epic. Ferrari vs Merc battle was incredible those 2 years as well.
@Lt. Dan I kind of agree. Hamilton beat him 2014-2015 and Rosberg had a shot to go back to back had he stayed. I think Rosberg wanted to go out on top and prioritize his family while he still is young and the family can enjoy him in great health.
@@easyenetwork2023 I don't know part of me would have loved to have seen Rosberg continue and cement his place with a 2nd title properly over Hamilton.
However the lengths Rosberg had to go to beat Hamilton, with his personal life , professionally + the mental beatdowns/drain from fighting Hamilton and Schumacher before that. It makes me feel like that there probably wasn't much more he could have given to stay on top of Hamilton and maybe it wasn't worth the sacrifice with his young family anymore. So he bowed out as a champion and prioritised his family which is completely fair.
Schumi nvr had good teammates, snd his only true competitor was Häkkinen
@@henrying6608 What are you talking about Schumacher was terrible at Mercedes I don’t even think he had a podium I know he never won. Rosberg gave modern Mercedes F1 there first podium and win. We’re as Mercedes never publicly spoke on picking Hamilton as the number 1 driver bit behind the scenes at Malaysia were they told Rosberg not to overtake Hamilton.
Obsessed with winning.....that's who he was.......what a legend.
Johnmatrix1000 many crashes and one day his luck ends
@@carlosrubio8234 He didn't crash that often at all.. Get real and the car failed in the last one Einstein.
@@MagicAyrtonforever he crashed out several times while leading clearly
Prost > Senna
Their stats as teammates show otherwise. When both McLarens finished the race (so no technical failures/bad luck), Senna completely dominated him, just like he did in qualy. When both Senna and Prost were on track, Senna was ahead/faster the vast manority of the times.
Walker is right is saying that Senna's will too win was over the top, has not been seen since.
Kimi hello?
Seem to forget all the things Schumacher did to his top competitors.
@@lukacalov1988 You really think Kimi has the same drive to win as Senna.
Really enjoyed your take on both of them. I'm not sure you could ever say one was better than the other. They were both brilliant in their own ways and imo that was what made their rivalry all the better.
Senna and Prost had hugely contrasting styles that both worked - Prost knew how to get a car set up almost perfectly and knew how to conserve his tyres and fuel. Senna could put in laps that seemed to defy the equipment and had a natural ability few have ever had. Both worthy champions, and they defined F1's golden age. The only two drivers on the grid today that MIGHT be able to match Prost and Senna in their prime would be Alonso and Hamilton, and there are no guarantees of that.
@Crixus Mauperthuis Then we'd have to agree to disagree. Senna's natural skill could be seen in how he took his Toleman to second and closed in on Prost in Monaco 84 in wet conditions, or his victory at Donnington in 93, among just a few examples. This is not to say that Prost wasn't talented (because clearly he was), but Senna was the one who could outlap teammates in qualifying by a second and a half, which is simply incredible.
@@meerkatmusings8450 Don't bother, Crixus is a known Senna hater/Prost fan. He is on every Senna related video doing the same thing: donwplaying Senna and talking about Prost like if he was the second come of Christ.
I actually marvel at the things Hamiltonncanndi with that Merc. In the closest era in terms of lap times, he can still snag his teammate by 3-4 tenths a lap in qualifying and the race. I think if he raced that Merc 110% every lap he could lead every lap, win pole, and take fastest lap more often. I think Hamilton holds back slightly now to ensure he finishes though. I think Bottas is pushing too hard at times, last time at Nurburgring 2 weeks ago being a prime example.
@Crixus Mauperthuis Senna beat Prost to pole a bunch at McLaren, by miles and miles. When his car was capable, he did the same in races as well. Remember, he out qualified everyone by over a second in 1990 at Monaco and won that race going away, I believe.
Lewis couldn’t tie Senna shoes never mind out race him
I can’t wait to die and hear Hunt and Murray commentating over Senna, Fangio, Villeneuve, Moss, Lauda, Ascari and all the other greats I can’t think of off the top of my head
Senna drove with his heart on his sleeve, and that admirable.
Not a huge fan of Senna, but respect where its due. I always prefered Prost. Him and Nikki Lauda laid the foundation for the modern day F1 driver.
Thank you for pointing that out. Ayrton said after Alain had retired that he knew Alain was the only reason he pushed himself so hard. Likewise, Alain Prost said after Senna died that a piece of him had died too. One couldn't have been as great as they were without the other.
Prost was great before senna even arrived in F1.
@@sugarnads This is how it works when a young driver meet a older driver lol, the problem here is that Senna died too early, he could definitely win more 1 or 2 titles, i mean, damon hill the most mid driver win one later in that williams
The Senna and Prost Era serves for Mercedes to understand the importance of the two drivers receiving the same treatment. It was a special Era. Senna's most important legacy was when he raised Prost's arms on the podium. Later he said on the radio that I missed him (Prost) on the track. Two legends!
Ayrton and Alain did not receive the same amount of treatment. When it comes to the team, yes, but there's one person who made things extremely awkward back in those magical days, not just for Ayrton (although he received a lot of flak nonetheless) but for the other drivers too - Jean Marie Balestre and I know why - 1, because Prost was his favourite, 2, because he had a permanent beef with Ayrton (although I've never really understood why but I decided it was a form of racism on his part) and 3, because he was too full of himself and he abused his power when he was president of the FIA. He really was poisonous back in the 80s/90s.
"Senna was obsessed with winning in a way that I've never come across with anybody else or any other driver"
Murray Walker
Murray has it right. Schumacher, Vettel, and Senna all share some things. They all are/were easily the most determined to win during their peak, they're all unreal on cold tires, and they all have races where they simply make the rest of the grid look slow. Stop arguing which is better, and be thankful that we get to see Vettel go berserk on cold tires and pull 2 seconds a lap out of Nico Rosberg in Singapore, and remember the day's when we watched Senna and Schumacher do the same.
Senna and Prost are 2 of the 5 best drivers in F1 history (the others being Fangio, Clark and Schumacher, Fangio being the best of those 5 drivers IMO). Senna was certainly the most committed driver in F1 history- maybe in motorsports history. I think that's why most people think he's the best F1 driver. Prost was maybe the most intelligent driver in F1 history- certainly the greatest tactician and technician ever. Senna was driven more by the heart, Prost was driven more by the brain.
Yes I completely understand. I don't know much about pre 1980'a F1, a bit about Niki Lauda and James Hunt that great rivalry, but I don't know much about Clark or Fangio. I still have alot to learn about it. I was re-watching the Belgian, Italian, and Singapore GP's the other night, and I just thought no matter how much I root against RB, I can't take anything away from Seb. I cannot as an F1 and racing fan watch a good driver and say he sucks because he's beating the team I'm rooting for.
If i am an Owner / Manager of an F1 Team --- Between Senna & Prost : if i have to choose --- i would take Prost.
Based on that:
1. he is going to create less risk to himself
2. the equipment less chance of coming back with a damaged car
3. less distraction and commotion to the team
However :
1 lap to qualify OR last lap of the race, you'd probably take Senna.
Either way you can't go wrong it's like saying 1A , 1B.
A great man talking about 2 other great men/ racingdrivers
Nice too see Murray the Legend. He is in soo good contidion for his age.
I think all Murray was alluding to was that Vettel can be ruthless like Ayrton was. Remember Malaysia 2013 as one example. To the age old, never ending Prost Senna debate - Senna in qualifying trim was without equal, Prost himself would admit as much. But when it came to racecraft, car setup and race pace and at a wider level, championship campaigns, then I would say it was Prost who had the edge. Remember we never saw Senna in his late 30s like we saw Prost (then fighting Senna). Had we seen Senna lose the 1994 title to Schumacher - which I think we would have - Senna may not be regarded with the esteem he is today. Jackie Stewart when interviewed in 1993 said that Prost was the better, more complete driver.
beeDUB75 So you think we would have seen Senna lose to MS in 94? Wow so Damon Hill would have beaten AS as he was only 2 points behind MS.......what an amazing judgement that is. I will turn the point around and say that if MS had proper competitors like AS or AP during his career for sure he wouldn't have all the records he achieved and have so many dupe fans thinking he was the best ever. MS is on record stating that head to head he would have lost to AS had he lived (Adelaide 94) - but you know better right?
Mauricio Garcia I know Schumacher had respect for Senna and would not have overtaken him on the warm up lap in Britain like he did Hill - whom he had little or no respect for. That being the case, he would not have been black flagged, would not have missed two races and would have been well clear in the championship. Prior to the British GP Schumacher was nearly double Hill's points tally. Hill only got as close as he did because of Schumacher's ban - and being in practice, if not literal, a 1 car team for much of the season. This though is all futile as we will never know for sure. All I will say is Senna would have been beaten eventually - if not 94 then soon after and most likely would not be regarded with such esteem as he is now - the fallen hero. All the fallen are - Villeneuve, Senna and now Bianchi. I totally agree with you on the point that if Schumacher had proper competition all his career (instead of just 1998-2000) the record books would look a lot different. If either Prost or Senna never raced the other would have set records that would never be beaten.
If MS didn't get banned???? The facts are the facts and he would have been banned and lost 2 races for his stupid attempt on Hill - and if Senna was alive he would have done the same thing. Oh wait, let me recall this straight, he did do the same thing in Brazil and was not called in for the 10 sec penalty - have you ever asked yourself how come?? He would have never won that race if the same rules had applied in Brazil as when they were applied in Britain - very strange.
Also, it was a proven fact (not a conspiracy like many MS fans like to paint) that Schumy had traction control. The FIA found this mid-season and did nothing about it, which was outrageous. Interesting enough AS saw this already at Aida and it took the FIA several races to discover this from the Benetton. So yes MS had a chance of beating AS in 94....LOL, hell I always ask myself how come all his cheats go unchecked by his fans during all these years?
Dude in 94 Benetton/MS cheated big time. The traction control was discovered by the FIA, that means MS should have been disqualified for the championship and period. Moreover, how did he pass AS in the pits? Perhaps because of the missing fuel rig that later was to blame for the fire at the pit stop in Hockenhheim on MS team mate. So no conspiracy there about this cheating too, the numbers don't lie. He put 2 sec less fuel and stayed for 2 laps longer then AS on 2 pit stops and with traction control and yet Senna was closing the gap from 10 sec to 4.5 when he spun. And you are telling me that MS could have beaten AS in 94/95??? Give me a break man.
The ultimate proof that MS cheated big time in 94 is his results, I won't provide them here but you can do the math yourself. MS win/pole ratio that year are his 2nd best EVER in all of his 18 years of F1 racing. yes that's right, higher then 95 when he had Renault engines and even higher then his second best season with Ferrari in 2002.
Now that we got past 94 let's look at 95. Damon Hill, a piece of shit driver and world champion by luck put 4 wins on Schumy. Do you really think that AS would have managed the same???? I find MS fans delusional over this 95 season when they say for sure that MS would have beaten AS as if Senna was Hill. Ayrton beat Alain Prost at his peak and in the same car by having more wins then him in 88/89 and in 93 being 2 sec a lap slower Prost outscored Senna by only 2 races but with Schumy in 95 it would have been different. Seriously, what a joke.
It's not a brain stretch to see that AS would have beaten MS in 94/95 and if Hill and Villeneuve were champions in 96/97 being infinitely worse then Senna the picture of the eternal "What if Senna had lived" becomes easy to grasp. AS would have nailed 94/95/96/97 the same way MS nailed 5 back to back championships - and that is because AS's best years were still ahead of him and sadly due to their age difference we would have never seen both men at their very best neck to neck.
So what does this all means, in short MS's first title would have only come in 2000 and the records would have all if not mostly been under Senna's name. The end title score between these guys if Senna retired in 97 (however he planned to retire by the year 2000 and in a Ferrari) would have been 7x5 (at least) and this debate would have never existed, very much the same way people don't really debate on who was better between Senna and Prost. And lastly, I also do realize that yes MS would have beaten AS many times and if AS raced beyond 97 then yes from that point on that's where Michael would have become the more dominant driver just like Alonso beat him in 2005/06.
R.I.P Mr. Murray Walker
Prost is a legend because he managed to beat Senna. Senna is a legend because he managed to beat prost. Even when they were at the highest rivalry ,insulting each other by the press and TV , they had a lot of respect for the driver the other was
..They both give us the best fights in F1 history . Fangio? Schumacher? Vettel? Maybe some would have been faster in the mc laren of 88 and 89 who knows ? But for me they're not high as Ayrton/Alain because of their less strong opponents. excse my englsh
Drivers like this don’t exist anymore.
Fucking bullshit. if anything they train and try even harder now, as in most sports universally.
@@markmark5269 all the guys look like they are on a holiday in the car.
A legend talking about legends.
Great analogy.
Prost actually outscored Senna at Mclaren in both 1988 and 1989. However, the system back then only counted in the 11 best results. So Senna won the 1988 championship. In 1988, Prost finished every race first or second except Italy and Britain, where his engines died.
Prost outscore Senna in 1989 because Balestre stole 2 wins from Senna (the two he needed to win the championship before even the last race): Suzuka and Estoril (when a DQ Mansel took him out and Balestre did nothing).
Senna is the rightful champion of 1989 and anyone without a bias acknowledge that.
"Senna was obsessed with winning in a way that I've never come across with anybody else or any other driver"
- Murray Walker
Senna never cared about being second or third, if he wanted to "play smart" he would've outscored Prost easily but he simply didnt care about anything else but winning, you could clearly see that on Monaco 88 and Brazil GP 1994 when he went out of the race cuz he didnt accept to be 2nd to Schumacher even if that was only the first race and any other driver wouldnt care that much about being 2nd. His mind was unique he knew he could score points easily but he wanted to be champion by winning by being the 1st.
Eddie Cheever once said of Prost..."You don't worry about him in qualifying, you worry when he's fastest in the race morning warmup. Then you know he has a good race setup". Senna himself knew that of all the top drivers he faced in F1 including Piquet, Mansell, Rosberg, Berger, Alboreto, Lauda and Schumacher, Prost was the one he had to beat to be the best. He did that, but in equal cars Prost also beat him. They both had their strengths and both had their weaknesses.
Prost had more points than Senna in 1988, beat Senna in 1989 and came close in the Ferrari, in fact Senna felt so threatened that he resorted to deliberately crashing to stop Prost from winning, Prost still won 4 very deserved championships while 2 of Senna`s 3 were a bit questionable, still a great driver but he believed he had the god given right to win and did not like to lose
Hahahahaha this man is on drugs lol
I completely agree with you, @John Richardson. No joke.
Ok so are you forgetting the politics and favouritism towards prost
@@hettonmassive50 He is forgetting that Balestre robbed 2 wins from Senna in 1989 (the two he needed to win the championship before even the last race): Suzuka and Estoril (when a DQ Mansel took him out and Balestre did nothing).
Senna is the real 1989 champion.
"Senna was obsessed with winning [...] I won't say at all costs, but pretty nearly at all costs." This is why I prefer Prost over Senna. Senna would have ran you over if neccessary. And I also tend to think that this somehow contributed to the fact that Senna is now dead while Prost is alive and well. And it is a bitter irony that in the end Senna died due to a technical failure that could have happened to everyone - including Prost.
happened to clark while he was driving slowly in a race he didn't want to be at in a car he didn't trust
If you are suggesting that Prost needed to drive at 99% a Professor to beat Senna who did that at 110% being only the 'pupil' than you are not putting them equal.
Read your comment and see that you are contradicting yourself. That is why you agree with someone who prefers Prost.
BTW I don't agree with all that crap on Prost driving at 90% etc. Any F1 driver gave 100% to win in their own way.
Senna wasn’t his pupil at all. I agree with the 90% bullshit no way he could have beat Mansell who’s commitment was so high he pushed his Lotus till he passed out from heat exhaustion or Senna and his style of banzai laps attacks.
That said, when it comes to sport, regardless of the discipline, the “modern era” argument remains a universal, and often, heated one.
In my observation, too often what the expounders, mostly young people, of the position that the “current” athlete - or driver, in this case - of today would dominate those athletes of the past fail to consider, is:
Senna fanboys are many and have spread because of the Media influence = brazilian and world press favoured Senna , and Prost came to be an underrated pilot in their views. And let me tell you in details, Ayrton Senna was very very concerned about the media views about him. In addition, Senna had by far the best promotion scheme in the sports media of F1 World.
Since the car races first categories, Senna had a solid promotion, advertising and clipping scheme, and even visited newspaper newsrooms, which at the time was a novelty. In Formula 1 , He was the first pilot to organize press conferences at the racetracks, So Avoiding to grant endless interviews , and at the same time He had better control over what he said not to be misunderstood. He was famous for the long pauses he made in his declarations , so that he could measure the words to be said. Senna was also a compulsive reader of what was published in the media and because of that He had indisposed with journalists throughout his career - e.g. with the Italian Giorgio Piola , Senna came to exchange shoves at the Media Center of a racetrack.
yeah the videos have been VERY biased towards Senna, not particularly balanced or honest
overrated vs underrated is crazy
Prost believed in God...Senna thought he was God...
Your statement seems so strange but also very accurate. Senna didn’t believe he could die and so he sent it in every corner on every track he raced on, its very ironic that he died due to a technical failure that could’ve happened to anyone.
Murray is the greatest of all time.
Vettel is a three time world champion, and three in a row to boot. That's beyond "good". Senna was a great driver, no doubt. But to deny Vettel his rightful place among the greats is a huge oversight. To me, Vettel's style incorporates the best of Senna and Prost, to me that makes him better than the both of them. Hope you can live with that.
Monza 2008 in a backmarker Toro Rosso.
It is impossible to compare this f1 with Prost and Senna and today. The role of drivers was much more important. So the best driver of all time is Juan Manuel Fangio. 5 titles in 1950's = 10 titles in 2010's. It is impossible that Vettel win like this in 80's
I look forward too it. Seeing as how Honda power is returning to McLaren in 2015, there's alot of interesting stuff happening in the next few years.
I think i did not understand myself.
100% agree with you about Fangio or Vettel and the other. An F1 world champion had already beat the best pilot of the world because the best f1 driver are in F1.
But no one had in his history such rivalry with only one opponent . Even in 90-91-93, Senna and Prost where driving to be the champion but also,or maybe especially to beat the other.
My English is to poor to be sure of what i try to say is the thing i think. Sorry
19 years today we lost senna. RIP
If Senna and Prost had been team mates a few yrs earlier , when prost was arguably more hungry ,then Senna s attitude to winning would nt have yielded the same results
Legends
alonso and hamilton had more experience than vettel if you say they are better and remeber vettel still 25
Exactly right! Some ignorant youtubers don't know what they're writing and don't realize that they contradict themselves
I agree with your list of F1 drivers.
Sir Walker, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE - DONT compare Milky-Vettel-Bieber, with Senna, or Schumacher
burns985 Senna had childish moments in his career as well, like Schumi and Vettel later.
YOU SAID IT ALL.
You say that, but people said the same thing about Hamilton, when he first went to Mclaren, Vettel clearly has mad skills, to be so dominant over his teammate Webber who is no slouch.
SENNA, the best driver ever.
no prost was the best of all time the end
stuart crigan Fuck that snail eating
fucker.
Is that the way to reply a guy who has not your same opinion? That's why I hate Senna lovers, they're so narrow minded. I think Prost is better than Senna as well.
Marcelo, that hate will burn you up. Prost was good, very calculated and consistent, but Senna was faster and more determined to win. Both brought the best out of each other. Senna was sad when Prost retired (after 1993), and Prost was even sadder when Senna died.
And at the end of the day were just fans, but if you ask past and present F1GP drivers they would overwhelmingly say that Senna was the best ever and none say that Prost was, it's always out of Jimmy Clark, Fangio, Schumacher, and Senna.
Senna had mental disorder
I'm with you. Sebastian Vettel's car at 81mph weighs double what it does standing still. Fangio had no safety equipment, probably no seatbelts. Senna had big tires and a massive set of balls. Trying to argue which one is better is pointless, because there is no possible way to get the together to race. Personally for me Senna is the greatest, that being said, Fangio was very skilled with a car as was Clark, and Moss.
Well I can definitely agree with you on Vettel giving the best feedback. But as far as my other point, I don't think anyone on the grid could do it. I will concur, the gap between Prost's 84 McLaren and Senna's Toleman is less that that of the RB9 and the Marussia, but I'm just trying to make a point. I just read my other comment and realized I made it sound like Newey is doing all the work. As I said, Vettel is a great driver, coming from a Ferrari fan and McLaren right after them.
Give respect to drivers in the 50s - the 94s because one crash = death (unless crashes were light)
that was very well done aswell if the williams car this year wasn't so bad he could have had a much better race
People always play down Senna purely due to the fact that so many like him, which doesn't make them right in any sense. Same thing can be said about Jimi Hendrix with his talent, you'd be surprised as to how many people think he isn't that great, but it's not because they actually think he isn't good, it's because they're tired of hearing how great he is.
That said, while I never had the privilege to see my #1 guy Senna race in person, nobody I ever saw at that Long Beach track was more intense, accurate, or downright brilliant than Gilles Villeneuve.
And none of these guys were a match for Gilles Villeneuve, Gilles was voted the best by his fellow drivers for the 1980 season. He finished the 1980 season with 2 fifths and 2 sixth places (thats 6 points the old fashion way). I would put Gilles up against anybody in any car of any era. If you wanna talk car control in any weather, and fearlessness. Gilles was the guy. I think he unofficially set a record for passing the most cars on the first lap (legend has it...) throughout the 1980 season.
I think Senna was the best! but Schumi worked so hard for being the best of the grid at his time! almos rebuild Scuderia Ferrari from ashes! Senna will be the best for all time! but Schumie is close!
Fangio, or Jim Clark considering their equipment and what they were facing in terms of danger, in my opinion are better than Senna , but saying this you can't compare any drivers from different era's the cars change if you put Fangio in a modern F1 car (he wouldn't fit) and wouldn't know what any of the buttons were) and vice versa. Senna in mercedes w196, he would struggle so I think it's wrong to say any F1 driver is the greatest and comparing them to others because you can't.
Why is everyone talking about the Red Bull?
If the Red Bull is the only thing capable of winning, why did Vettel win in Monza 08?
Why doesn't Mark Webber coming second every race?
Did you see the Abu Dhabi GP last year? Vettel was twice at the back of the field and fought his way up.
No seriously, you have no idea, what you are talking about.
Compared to his contemporaries, Fangio was undoubtably the best F1 driver ever. However, F1 drivers have become much quicker in general. Their training has become better, their physical fitness and mental fitness are coached, monitored and trained the whole time. I have absolutely no doubts that any modern F1 driver would completely destroy Fangio on a racetrack. In the same way I think Senna wouldn't be as fast as e.g. Vettel.
Schumacher and Vettel have nothing common with Senna. SENNA was one and only.
Drivers aids came along in 92 and was banned from 94 on. These days we have Power Steering, Flappy Paddles and far greater downforce than anything made back then
Fangio only had to beat Farina, Ascari, Trintigant, Moss, Behra, Brooks, Musso, Collins and Hawthorne.
These are I believe the top 10 drivers at the time and all very good and given the lack of any safety eqipement very brave.
Vettel has beaten 4 world champions, not counting Schumacher. Anyone who says he has had it easy or it is all the car is an idiot.
Schumacher certainly did not have an easy ride either.
Get well soon Murray!
Vettel wins just because he has the best car? what bull shit, back in 2010 he did not have the best car but he won his first drivers championship and constructors because he was a talented driver.
You are simply being unfair. Schumi had Ferrari spec bridgestones.... the same as Ruebens. Vettel wins because he's getting the most out of his car, and because his car happens to be the best, but it's just a stationary machine without him in it.
I think Walker knows more about these people than you will ever do.
Julian, consider yourself lucky to be able to see Vettel in his prime, although I still think that he's gonna get better. I just missed being able to watch the great Jim Clark and even though I can watch some grainy old videos of him or Fangio for that matter, I just don't get the same feel for their driving skills as I have for anyone who drove from 1975 on. I'm not saying these guys were not good, I just find it harder to confidently assess them because it was largely a missed era for me.
Get well soon Murray.
If serena had lived would shumacher of been so good. Put another way would have got away with much as he did but the senna was reckless and dangerous with his move at the Japanese grand prix 1990 despite that he was highly competitive flawed genius in the car
Wise man!
The only thing wrong with the Senna film. It wasn't voiced by Murray.
I also agree with Bigger Thinking1
Are you people nuts ? He's not comparing driving abilites of Senna or Vettel, he's saying they have similar characteristics...
ayrton senna was in the best car, vettel is a star , hamilton i think is the best driver though but respecting good talent vettel is something special
It is just an opinion. I think that Prost and Senna was very equal that's why we look for the best of two of them. Schumacher was a good driver but in 80's he would have got just one or two titles..
Senna had his fair share of good cars and pretty much always had an engine advantage when endowed with Honda power. Hamilton and Alonso are great drivers that are regularly beaten by Vettel. Time is on Vettel's side and his accomplishments so far are ahead of Michael Schumacher's and Ayrton Senna's at similar stages in their career's. You may not like him, but to deny that he is a superior talent is being ignorant to the obvious!
Tradução?
What if all the competitors were of the same chronological age today?
To somehow argue that Senna - given proper periods in which to test, develop, observe, and practice with the F1 cars of today - wouldn’t be competitive, much less win race after race, is ludicrous! See Schumacher’s interview, during which he discusses Ayrton’s brilliance and competitive drive.
Senna beat Schumacher several times prior to his death….May he rest
"not yet shown any true sign of greatness". Oh I don't know but being a three time world champion at a record young age says a thing or two.He holds all the the youngest ever records save for the fastest race lap(Nico Rosberg) and the saying goes that the best driver ends up in the best car. Alonso sure shined in his Renault days. That he never managed to match his pole and wins from 2005 & 2006 means the Renault was the best car he ever drove
Vettel has more wins than all those three "greats"
I appreciate what you're saying. But my point is Senna is in a league of his own. The guy won races in cars by far inferior. For him, blaming the car, the mechanics or the weather was not an option. He just wanted to win, more than any other driver. He once won a race with a gearbox stuck in 6th gear. As I said Vettel is a heck of a driver but Senna made the impossible possible. Anyway, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.
And these things limit a current driver's ability to "run on the edge of their car's capability" how?
Prost was statistically a more successful driver than Senna. He had a higher win percentage. Stone cold mathematics.
Prost was a more reliable driver, softer with the engine: it makes a difference at the end of the season. Senna had the capibility too push out of the car's limits, but too much sometimes
Senna was faster. Over 1.5 secs faster than Prost at Monaco qualifying session.
One race, one year. You are cherry picking. How do you know Alain, after seeing he was unlikely to beat Senna's time, didn't simply do enough to qualify second? Answer is, you don't.
@@monotoneman5980 I stick to Senna being faster. Thanks.
@Peter Johnson sure he was faster, but not necessarily always by the gap in qualifying times. As stated earlier, how do you know that Alain, knowing he probably couldn't beat Senna's time, didn't simply do enough to beat third? Qualifying 1.5 seconds faster at Monaco, doesn't mean that either driver was on their absolute limit. I agree, Senna was the better qualifier. You are right to call him faster. But I dispute the true gap between the two in qualifying was always as it seemed. Enjoy.
You're viewing this for a different perspective. As today's drivers are much safer and there is basically no huge risk in driving, when Senna was racing, he and the people at that time didn't know this could be possible. However, comparing 2 racing drivers from different ages of motorsport is done by the glimpse they give of their attitude towards what they do. Vettel doesn't care who you are as long as he is racing you and will do anything to beat you and win. Reminds you of anyone?
why are there 5 dislikes ????? 5 wankers think they know more than the great Murray Walker .
Vettel is a good driver. I'm not a fan of him (I prefer Kimi) but you still have to give him credit. Him and Shumi dominate the Race of Champions. Grosjean is a good driver too.
Ayrton Senna he was the best driver not Michael Schumacher dont compare Michael Schumacher with Ayrton Senna..if senna would have not died in that accident in 1994, Michael Schumacher would never have won that race and later that six world world titles..,He won that six world world titles because at that time no other cars are faster than Ferrari F1 cars and later u can see he lost..because technology is changing..,and Michael Schumacher always cheat u can go through his history of races.. MURRAY WALKER always support Michael Schumacher..,
You have to be a good driver to even have a shot at Formula 1, the problem is you also have to have quite a bit of money and i think the money aspect is getting in the way a bit
I personally don't think that Senna's driving style would get him anywhere in modern F1 and vice versa. Sebastian wouldn't get anywhere in 1987 Formula 1. It's a different time and a different game. I feel that if all the variables were removed so it was equal, he would win. As long as Vettel has a half decent car, he will be contending for a championship, but I would not call him a superior talent to Senna. The argument could be made that F1 is easier than it once was.
He may be driving for the team you are rooting for before you know it. Unless there is a big change in Ferrari's fortunes next year ( ie they are totally dominant), I think that they (Ferrari) will make a big push to sign Vettel in 2016. Maybe they can sell him on "replicate what Schumacher did"?, who knows it might work, afterall Schumacher was his hero.
Lol winning one race might be luck. Winning a championship isn't just luck. Winning three obviously isn't just luck.
❤️
mclaren had the best car in 2012 plus vettel won for toro rosso aswell
Senna faz muita falta suas escolhas fez ficar para história!
Its not a five dollar chair. It's aerodynamicly engineered to create downforce so not important people fall off from it.
I agree with Alexander
dont agree because webber isn't coming 1st or 2nd every race and he is in the same car
i dont totaly agree, senna was definitely better then vettel(better then everybody in my opinion), but senna was in every qualy amazingly fast. and vettel has that ability to, to sometimes in his last fast qualy lap beat every body else, but i agree that hamilton and alonso are more complete drivers
How can a comparison between two drivers be insulting?? And how can you know, whether today's pilots would not take that risk, to win? They just don't have to, so you can't blame them for that, Just like you can't blame Ayrton for wearing a fireproof overall contrary to guys like Fangio.
I think i saw that same chair 🪑 at a 99 cents store. 😃
Unsure you should be here pal. To say point missed is a gross understatement.
Maybe I didn't make my point clear enough and I apologize. You said take away the technology, like what, carbon brakes or chassis, semi auto gearbox, advanced aerodynamics? I mean Juan Manuel Fangio, Alberto Ascari, Jimmy Clark and Jackie Stewart's era, these guys didn't even have proper fuel cells (this is technology too). And these guys went after wins as hard as anyone, including Senna. I didn't mean Senna was wimpish, we all know isn't true
turn it around and give senna the same car as vettel. that would be funny.
you simply cannot compare them
Goooooood driver better than the ones in Gotham