Champion of Champions: Michael Schumacher vs Alain Prost

Michael Schumacher vs Alain Prost

Champion of ChampionsPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Champion of Champions: Michael Schumacher vs Alain Prost

Michael Schumacher and Alain Prost won more races than anyone else. That’s 142 Grand Prix victories between the two of them.

Of the 839 races that have counted towards the world championship since 1950, one in six were won by one of these two drivers.

While even Prost falls well short of Schumacher’s record total wins, it will be remembered that he drove alongside world championship-winning team mates in five season. Schumacher did so in just five races.

Similarly Schumacher’s tally of titles seven out-strips Alain Prost’s four, but it bears remembering how close Prost came to three more: two points away in 1983, half a point in 1984, and in 1988 he amassed more points than champion Ayrton Senna, but had to discard more under the ‘best 11 results count’ rule.

But it would be wrong to overlook that Schumacher was championship runner-up in 1998 and 2006 (and in 1997, prior to his disqualification).

The pair are almost unequalled in having spent over a decade at the sharp end of Formula 1, challenging for wins and championships.

But that success was sometimes accompanied by controversy: Prost’s collision with Senna in 1989 which sealed his third championship had much in common with Schumacher’s notorious collision with Damon Hill just five years later (and with Jacques Villeneuve three years after that).

Their careers overlapped for little more than a season. Their most interesting encounter came in the 1993 Portuguese Grand Prix, where Schumacher’s tenacity on old tyres allowed him to snatch his second F1 victory. Prost settled for second place behind the Benetton, enough to secure his fourth and final world championship.

It’s down to you to pick which of these drivers belongs in the Champion of Champions final.

Vote for which you think was best below and explain who you voted for and why in the comments.

Michael Schumacher Alain Prost
Michael Schumacher, Ferrari, Bahrain, 2006 Alain Prost, Williams, 1993
Titles 1994, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 1985, 1986, 1989, 1993
Second in title year/s Damon Hill, Damon Hill, Mika Hakkinen, David Coulthard, Rubens Barrichello, Kimi R??ikk??nen, Rubens Barrichello Michele Alboreto, Nigel Mansell, Ayrton Senna, Ayrton Senna
Teams Jordan, Benetton, Ferrari, Mercedes McLaren, Renault, Ferrari, Williams
Notable team mates Nelson Piquet, Eddie Irvine, Rubens Barrichello Niki Lauda, Ayrton Senna, Nigel Mansell
Starts 268 199
Wins 91 (33.96%) 51 (25.63%)
Poles 68 (25.37%) 33 (16.58%)
Modern points per start1 14.05 12.48
% car failures2 8.21 16.58
Modern points per finish3 15.30 14.96
Notes Missed several races in 1999 after breaking his leg at Silverstone Lost ’83 title by two points and ’84 title by half a point
Retired in 2006 after 11 seasons with Ferrari Controversial clash with Senna sealed third title
Returned with Mercedes in 2010 Returned from sabbatical to clinch fourth title with Williams
Bio Michael Schumacher Alain Prost

1 How many points they scored in their career, adjusted to the 2010 points system, divided by the number of races they started
2 The percentage of races in which they were not classified due to a mechanical failure
3 How many points they scored in their career, adjusted to the 2010 points system, divided by the number of starts in which they did not suffer a race-ending mechanical failure

Round three

Round two

Round one

Which was the better world champion driver?

  • Michael Schumacher (53%)
  • Alain Prost (44%)

Total Voters: 754

Loading ... Loading ...

This poll remains open until February 4th.

You need an F1 Fanatic account to vote. Register an account here or read more about registering here.

Read the F1 Fanatic Champion of Champions introduction for more information and remember to check back tomorrow for the next round.

Have you voted in the previous rounds of Champion of Champions yet? Find them all here:

Champion of Champions

Browse all Champion of Champions articles

Images ?? Ferrari spa (Schumacher), Williams/Sutton (Prost)

195 comments on “Michael Schumacher vs Alain Prost”

  1. Looks like I (might just) have first post. And I have no idea who to choose. Ok I know, I’m sacked!

  2. the professor – the name says it all

    1. Agree.

      Prost has more than double the number of car failuers. He nearly has more WDC’s than Schumacher (lost by half a point, lost by 2 points just rediculos stuff given how much the cars broke down and thathe managed 4 titles.

      ALso, Schumacher won lamost all of his titles with no competition. in 94 his car wasn’t exactly legal. At Ferrari he had the best of everything including tyres made for him and a team that would happily destroy a teammates confidence to guarentee him another WDC.

      Prost’s closest competition was usually from Senna. Ayrton Senna, the man, the legend. Infact out of the time they were together as teammates it was Senna 1, Prost 1, and Prost with more points by Senna due to the 11 races rule 1. Very even yet if it was Senna vs SChumacher I doubt there would be much contest.

      Prost easily.

      1. Yes if it was Senna vs Schumacher we all know that Schumacher would crush him… hmm poor choice of words… we all know that Schumacher would bury.. hmm… we all know that Schumacher would pawn Senna

        Schumacher wasn’t half as a dangerous driver than Senna yet Schumacher gets all the flack for his “iffy” encounters and Senna gets praised for it.

        Let’s be honest if Senna hadn’t passed away on the track the love for him wouldn’t be so imposing

    2. I go for Schumacher. He made a Ferrari real top team and he got balls like Senna.

      Prost was like modern type of racers. I just want to remind you Australian GP in 1989. Prost was one of those who did not want to race, Senna stayed in the car.

      It’ was pretty much similar situation like 2010 GP Korea, when Hamilton really grows into my eyes.

      1. he had no need to race in australia, if senna had broke his leg then who would of looked stupid, and thats what prost was all about only going as far as u need.

        nothing like korea when u had people fighting for the title. i massively respected lewis for korea but if he was leading title by 20points his attitude with understandably be different.

        ferrari were already a top team, as great as schu was at pushing them in the right direction. Prost nearly won the title with them in his first season! and fernando has done exactly the same thing.

        i cant pick a winner here. both amazing. id probably edge for prost but only just

        1. I don’t want to think “what if”. One thing we both know for sure…

          “if it´s dry, wet, or snow on the track, someone will be faster and someone slowler, but is the same track for all, let´s race”
          Gilles Villeneuve.

          For me this type of thinking is substantial.

        2. I have to take issue with that. Ferrari were virtual nobodies by 1995. Alonso has Schumacher to thank more than any other individual person for being able to jump into a competitive Ferrari.

      2. In Australia 89, Prost considered too dangerous to drive under those conditions, and the drivers came to an agreement of going into the pits after the first lap. (Similar to Lauda in Japan 76). Prost was the only one who had the courage to do that, even though he was leading the championship. Senna,s “bravery” of racing resulted in his crashing into Brundle’s rear, which could have ended badly.

        I vote for Prost, for many reasons including beating 5 world champions as teammates, taking the title in a very inferior car (1986), for his smoothness and consistency.

        But i’d just like to say it’s ridiculous when people say that Schumacher only won because he had the best car, or no competitions.

        Schumacher only had a dominant car in 2 years of his career (2002 and 2004). Or else why did Barrichelo failed to finish 2nd in any year other than 2002 and 2004???

        As for competition, we only say it was weak because they failed to beat Schumacher!! I mean, Hill could’ve won 2 WDC, Hakkinen 4, Raikkonen 2…and then we would rate them much higher. The problem with them was not lack of talent it was Schummy!

        It’s also worth remembering that Senna said he found very difficult to beat Schumacher in 1991!! And then Schumacher beat Senna in his first full season, 1992.

        As for team orders, well just remember Berger in Suzuka 91, being forced to let Senna through, and then when the title was secure after Mansell spun off, Senna gave back the lead to Berger.

        Which reminds me that Prost was never the first driver in any season, except perhaps 1993.

  3. oh god, this is so difficult.

    to me, the best champion has to be a great ambassador for the sport, which means being a good guy off the track as well as on track.

    On track, Schumacher does, hands down (statistically) beat Prost, but i think that prost had a lot tougher competition: Senna, Mansell, Piquet and Lauda. Schumacher had tough competition, but none the quality of Senna or the others, therefore I think that on track Prost is more deserving.

    Off track, from what I have seen Alain Prost was a great guy – warm, welcoming and friendly. Schumacher, less so.

    So for me, although they are both brilliant champions, Prost gets the edge on Schumacher.

    1. A lot tougher competition?

      Hakkinen, Alonso, Raikkonen, Coulthard, Montoya, Hill, Berger…it goes on.

      Schumacher beat all on-comers, including Senna (As an inexperienced F1 driver) so I wouldn’t say “A lot” tougher competition.

      1. true, i get your point, but you know fully what i meant :P

        1. Schumacher’s competition seemed useless because he was so good. Didn’t Prost get beaten by Hill a few times in 1993 anyway.

          1. Didn’t Schumacher get beaten a few times by Massa in 06? And he got mullered by Rosberg in 2010.

            Prost was the only driver truly capable of humiliating Ayrton Senna. That gets him my vote any day.

          2. Brownsugar42 (@)
            30th January 2011, 2:19

            Schumachers competition seemed useless, because the Ferrari cars were so dominant, and he never had to race his teammates. McLaren and Williams, sucked…speed/reliability, during the time of Michael’s dominance. And he definitely didn’t drive against the best either. Most of the champs in Schumachers era, were out in the first round. Villeneuve, Hill…only Hakkinnen can be considered a true championship rival for Michael, and other than the 98/99 season, he rarely had a competitive car.

          3. Mclaren and Williams didn’t “suck”, especially in 2003 when the Williams was considered the best overall package. In 2001 both teams had cars capable of challenging Schumacher on a regular basis, but Schumacher was too fast and consistent, making it look easy.

            All any competitor can do is beat what is put in front of them, and as a result I agree mostly with TommyB on this one- Schumacher was good enough to make his opposition in those years look poor.

      2. The UK tabloid called The Times states the top 20 drivers of all-time (in their opinion) and for the most part the list is pretty good… It always gets tough when we debate BEST driver ever when many are from different decades and technology changed so much. What I want to bring up is one of the more common disses on MSC; that he never had the competition that some of these other guys had -REALLY? I mean REALLY? He raced and beat 25% of the Top 20 of ALL-TIME. PERIOD. 1/4 of the greatest ever. The cars may be a big part of it, but they also failed less in his day than in previous days and were likely closer in relative performance as well. Re-watch races where this guy had to put in the best laps before pit-ins, “hey Michael, we need 4 perfect laps so you can pit out ahead of (insert top level driver).” Michael, “Okay, Its what I do.”

        1. I think the Times might be a little unhappy to be called a ‘tabloid’

          1. I’m not knocking The Times as a paper specifically, but, with few exceptions, most papers these days are just tabloids; in fairness they have to be to compete with the sh!7e on the tele! Don’t be so edgy mate!

  4. A German and a Frenchman. What bias can an Englishman be accused to be applying I wonder. Depends what century you’re from I guess…lol

    1. Prost drove for and won his 4 titles with English teams… that makes him part of the family surely? ;)

      1. Schumacher won his first two championships for an English constructor as well…

    2. As an Englishman, with an Italian ancestor, born in Germany, who regards the French as our historical enemies.

      I voted for the Professor.

  5. Went for Prost

  6. Wow 12 votes a piece… :O

  7. Alain Prost for me, by “a nose”, just look at the drivers he had to go up against in his day compared to Schumi. To get 4 WDC and 4x 2nd’s out of that era is impressive none the less. And when your going up against the likes of multiple world champion winners like Lauda, Piquet and Senna, surely makes him stand out more then Schumi.

    If you swapped their careers, both would of accomplished the same I reckon.

    1. Looks like this poll will be closer than Schumacher vs Clark, right down to the wire.

    2. And when your going up against the likes of multiple world champion winners like Lauda, Piquet and Senna, surely makes him stand out more then Schumi.

      If Schumacher hadn’t been as dominant as he was, a few of his rival one-time champions would likely have been multiple champions as well and probably would’ve been rated higher. To my mind your argument just highlights Schumacher’s dominance in his prime.

    3. Top 25% all defeated by MSC, but yeah, you’re right- he had no competition!
      BTW, although Nico was a really nice guy when I met him and I hope he does win a championship, I gotta think that your name alone tells me you’re a dreamer. Senna was the better of Prose and MSC doesn’t take 2nd fiddle to someone other decades 2nd fiddle. Much love to all these guys however fierce the debate goes

      1. Hay… if Nico gets a title contending car for the first time he will be up there with the other big boys, you can quote me on that if you like lol.

        Your name alone tells me your from…Chicago? Am I right?

        1. Nico is nice, i also hope he’s gonna win some races, but he’s clearley no champion. If you stop and think, all of the great champions impressed a lot as rookies, got victories by their 2 season in average or bad cars… None of that aplies to Nico.

          Well, he might be a champion like his father, who had never won a race before, in a year where 5 drivers took more wins than he did, and 5 other took the same number as he (1)

          1. Tell that to Mika Hakkinen, took him 7 years to get his first win in F1 and he went off to win 2 world titles when he finally got the title contendeing car.

            Jaques Villeneuve had the same start to his career like Lewis Hamilton getting 2nd in his rookie season then winning the world title next year, yet he never won again. So i don’t think previous results are 100% bonafide accurate to the future ahead. Drivers do get better over the years and are allowed to surpase a better driver if they put the effort in.

            Yer maybe nothing is special about Nico since he drove for a team which was a shell of it’s former self, unable to break into the top 4 in constructors and having to beg for money to keep the team running.

            I believe we have yet to see Nico’s ability since he hasn’t even had the chance to show it yet and 2011 will make or brake his future “if” Mercedes create a great car for him.

          2. If you stop and think, all of the great champions impressed a lot as rookies

            Rosberg got fastest lap in his very first race and qualified third in his second race.

          3. Well, Barrichello got a pole in his rookie season, and he’s not one of the greats. That’s the kind of results some good drivers get, but the really great ones always show who they are at the beginning.

            I’m talking about really impressing results, like Senna in Monaco 84 or Schumacher beating Senna in his first full season.

            Hakkinen is a great driver, but one of the all time greats

        2. @Nico to win,
          Actually I just moved to Portland, OR so I’m not a Seattleite anymore… now, Ich bin ein Portlander LOL

          1. Well I didn’t do history about JFK so I gather what I read on the great wise net that’s a twist from his speech about the Berlin wall. I would take my hat off to you if I had one but it’s not that cold in good old England at the moment etc, so I hope you understand the situation.

  8. Schumacher, this in my eyes should be the final. I’m bored of explaining why Schumacher and Prost are the best drivers ever so i’ll give it a miss.

    1. yea, i agree. this is merely my (our) opinion, but to me these are the two best hands down and i can’t decide which one…the both changed the way I look at F1 (as Senna did as well)…

      hhhmmmm, I have to go with the Professor because I think he had more of a challenge than Mike. Mike was brilliant and so dominant, but I don’t think he fought quite as hard as Prost for his titles….at least the last 5 of them

      1. to clarify, i was agreeing that these are the 2 best

    2. I went for Michael. He has records practically in every field, and this is eloquent.

  9. Schumacher. No question about it for me.

  10. Nico has a good point, had their times in the sport been swapped I agree that they would have been about the same. This makes it really hard to judge. Yes Prost had tougher competition, but I feel Schumacher’s competition gets underrated in this respect. Yes Prost had Senna-41 wins, Mansell-31 wins, Piquet-20 something, but Schumacher had hill- 20, Hakkinen-20, Raikkonen and Alonso who each had nearly 20 during his first tenure in, and now he has the likes of Hamilton and Vettel to deal with.

    1. I agree with Nico’s point too and you make a very good one too about the number of wins their rivals had.

      1. Thankyou Icthyes.

  11. We Want Turbos (@)
    29th January 2011, 23:09

    Prost but only on the basis that he had to beat some amazing drivers to win titles. Whereas I feel Schmacher wasn’t pushed the same(for as long)

  12. This is probably the fairest comparison I’ve seen on CofC, they’re alike in their technical minds, and shrewd driving nous.

    The task is to win championships, and Schumacher did that. He ticked the boxes, and succeeded in ways no other driver has ever done. He pushed his team along side Brawn as a company, focused, making any and all sacrifices to serve the necessary aim.

    But, for myself, I grew tired of watching one team, throw endless amounts of money, and have a ‘spare’ driver handing points over, or taking them off the other teams whichever was called for at the time. I felt cheated of seeing raw talent on the track.

    The cars were phenomenal year after year, and Schumacher was tuned in to his car more and more. Pulling out performances, that as a non-Ferrari fan, made me sick to watch. He was, and arguably still is, a special driver.

    Both Prost and Schumacher tested their cars endlessly, pushing themselves fine tuning the setup, the feedback, increasing their own fitness, obsessing over detail.

    Prost however, didn’t shirk facing tough team mates, probably because no team at the time was willing to risk all for one driver. If he had the opportunity Schumacher had, I’m sure he would have taken it. It would have appealed to his ‘professor’ nature.

    But the question is, which is the better driver. Because Prost didn’t have his career so manicured. But my opinion swings based on the context of the thought at the time.

    How do you measure a great driver? It’s a great question..

    1. “Prost however, didn’t shirk facing tough team mates”? Except that he allegedly had a clause in his Williams contract that prevented Senna joining them whilst he was there. He also left McLaren pretty soon after Senna joined.

      Lots of comment saying that Schumacher had weak team mates on here, but in 94 and 95 he was so far ahead of his team mates it was ridiculous (JJ Lehto and Jos Verstappen weren’t that slow and Johnny Herbert was no slouch either). In 96 Schumi could at times compete with the Williams of Hill and Villenueve while Irvine would be languishing down around 10th (which is where that ferrari should have been in normal driver’s hands).

      The stat for me that sets Schumacher apart is his podiums per start though and he did this in cars that were’nt always the best, when he had the best machinery he made it count.

      1. Prost faced Lauda, Senna and Mansell in the same car, three drivers superior to any Schumacher faced across the bulk of his career.

        I don’t blame Prost for vetoing Senna for Williams, it was going to be his final season and he didn’t want the same hassle he had at Mclaren. The reason he left Mclaren is because it was untenable for him to remain, his and Senna’s working relationship was so hostile and Ron Dennis had made it clear that Senna was the future of the team.

        1. I agree with you on Prost not wanting to have Senna join the team. That is not about fearing a tough team mate, it was personal.

  13. To quote a certain video that was posted somewhere else on this site:

    “Oh man, oh god, oh man, oh god, oh man, oh god, oh man!”

    I really don’t know which one of the two is really the best. This should have been the final. I think I will refrain from voting now and look how this developes. But whoever wins this is my champion of champions and no, Senna is not better than either one of these two drivers.

  14. I think you should have mentioned that Prost was robbed of a title in 1990.

    1. But then he was handed one in 1989 as well. Schumacher was pretty much handed 2 titles as well in 2002 and 2004 .. when his only competitor (Rubens), was not allowed to challenge him.

      1. macca1977 (@)
        30th January 2011, 13:00

        Handed ? You must be joking. Last time I checked you needed to win races to get the WDC, the problem MSC has is that he made his competitors look so bad, everybody think they weren’t as good as the drivers of the 90’s/80’s. There are some real good drivers in the first half to the 00’s like Montoya, Raikkonen, Hakkinen, but the only one we consider worthy of MSC was Mika cause he had won championships before. If the other would have won something by that time where they were fighting MSC, the no competition card wouldn’t be in every anti-MSC post. The reason they didn’t win anything was because of MSC. Who helped develop a car to the point of perfection like no other driver before him. He tested more than any other driver on the field and made Ferrari a winner team again, and built the team around him from the dog it was in 1996, to the invincible team of the 00s. That’s the other card: the no.1 status, if you have a driver with that level of commitment and skill in a short time he will be the center of the team, when this new Mercedes car suits better MSC than Nico, everybody would say that is MSC taking over again, and they will be right, but he is taking over because of talent, knowledge and commitment.

        This poll is the hardest, harder than against Senna, but in both polls my vote goes for MSC.

    2. ROBBED? He was the one that tried to steal one in collution with Balastre. Luckily, Senna would have none of it.

      I really can’t vote for either Prost or Schumacher. They are both some of the sport’s greatest drivers, but also both villains.

      1. Yes. Winning a championship by blantantly and deliberately crashing into a rival is robbery when you take off your rose-coloured spectacles.

        1. why dont you just do the math?give Prost a first place in suzuka 1990 and Senna the last one…who would be champion?

          i wait for an answer

        2. No, it is setting things straight, when you take off yours. Balastre made sure that Prost got the clean side of the starting grid, by swapping the grid sides overnight after qualification.

          Prost has absolutely no intention of honouring that Senna had done the better qualification, and tried to use this to his advantage. Senna did as he had proclaimed he would, and rightfully got the championship by taking the cheating scumbag off.

          1. Wrong. Balestre never changed grid positions. Pole was on the dirty side, Senna asked for it to be changed, stewards agreed but Balestre refused. Not Prost’s fault nor even Balestre’s since he wasn’t responsible for putting P1 in the wrong place. Either way nothing justifies ramming anyone off the track. Schumacher got a championship DQ for trying to take out Hill, Senna deserved at least the same punishment for doing worse. The 1990 Suzuka GP is a stain on F1 history.

          2. Wrong. Senna asked if P1 was going to be on the dirty side or the clean side. He was told it was going to be the clean side, and then after he took P1, Balastre reversed the decision.

            And of course things like this justifies ramming the cheater. This could have been a stain on F1 history, but Senna set it straight.

          3. @judo chop:
            I think you mean Villeneuve in stead of Hill, because Schumacher never got punished for crashing into Hill, just as Prost never got punished for crashing into Senna in Suzuka 1989 (and got robbed of 1st place by the stewards afterwards). Schumacher probably wouldn’t have been punished if his crash with Hill didn’t happen (or if he became World Champion). And besides, his punishment was symbolic. A ban for a couple of races would have been more appropriate.

            Sennas action was a retaliation for 1989 and Balestres action.
            In 1990 he warned Prost that he wouldn’t back down if Prost fought him for 1st place in the first corner, which was what happened. Deliberately? Yes, but I have seen other drivers (deliberately or not) going wide in the first corner taking out opponents as well.

  15. There will never be another match-up more difficult for me than this one. I have no idea how to vote.

    Prost was the supreme F1 driver, of all time in my opinion. So clinical, precise, an expert in developing the car. But Schumacher was far more of a racer than he.

    Prost certainly had much tougher competition: Lauda, Senna, Mansell and Piquet. Schumacher had Hill, Villeneuve, Hakkinen, Raikkonen and Alonso, no slouches but no legends (apart from Fernando, we’ll see how he fits in in a few years’ time).

    Both enjoyed some ridiculously dominant machinery in their time, but only Prost had to share his with another great.

    But Schumacher re-invented what it meant to be a F1 driver with his level of commitment and fitness. Unfortunately he also had a ruthless streak which only Senna can beat. Perhaps because of his most ruthless moments we tend to forget a lot of the things he did were simply harsh but fair, but that doesn’t erase his big mistakes.

    As champions, you would have to say Prost was the better ambassador. But was that more because of Schumacher’s character or simply because he was disliked?

    In the end though, I can’t lie to myself and act dispassionately. Prost did many great things but the little I’ve actually seen rather than read will never excite me as much as the thrill of watching Schumacher win the 1998 Hungarian Grand Prix, his first lap the of the 1998 Japanese Grand Prix, many many other things besides also but above all, that felling of disappointment when he won his fifth title in 2002, that I had come to expect so much from this man that the manner in which he won it was so anti-climactic.

    I respect people who saw Senna race live and put him above all others in their estimation. But this is the guy I watched live, who brightened up the Sunday afternoons of my childhood. I don’t care what bad things he’s occasionally done, because I don’t excuse them. I focus on all the other things he did and will forever be proud to call myself a Schumacher fan.

    1. Fair point well made.

      1. I agree, fair and true!

        1. That last paragraph summed it up for me! and I go with the Racers, as Peter said below :)

    2. I agree. I think you said it all right here…

      Prost was the supreme F1 driver, of all time in my opinion. So clinical, precise, an expert in developing the car. But Schumacher was far more of a racer than he.

      … and personally I’ll always pick the “racers” like Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton, etc. over the “drivers” like Prost and Button.

      As champions, you would have to say Prost was the better ambassador. But was that more because of Schumacher’s character or simply because he was disliked?

      There’s certainly enough dislike of Schumacher out there to affect his reception among fans. As a person off the track he’s always seemed like a pretty decent guy to me, in spite of some of his more questionable moves on track.

      1. Not to mention his 10 million dollar donation for Tsunami victims. That’s very very generous

  16. Schumacher no doubt about that. I know all haters will go against schumi and vote for prost even if they “know” schumi is better.

    1. … shallow dude.. shallow.

  17. Schumacher and Prost, won 10 out of 11 world titles, with Tabacco as the main sponsor.

    Mild Seven, and Marlboro.

    Marlboro wins 8-2 though :)

    1. Didn’t Rothmans sponsor Williams in 1993? But you’re right, Canon was the title sponsor.

  18. Has to be Schumacher.

  19. Schumacher is more than a driver, he is a master in so many fields. His Ability, his fitness, his psyche, his passion, his willingness to succeed and how he with others as well built Ferrari from a midfield team back to glory.

    Senna & Prost didn’t do what Michael did, they just jumped ship if they didn’t have the best car. Michael built his success and he is the greatest for it. He could of done what they did and could be possibly a 10 time World Champion by now but a lesser Champion at that. Jumping in to the best car ever year is easy but building a family over time and making them the best is the real achievement here.

    Schumacher – Easy vote!

  20. As much as I have a dislike for Schumacher, I reckon he was, by a whisker, a better champ. He’s smashed all the records, and he had Senna matched in my opinion is the very short time they raced each other in equalish machinery.

    A lack of competition is hardly Schumacher’s fault. The competition he did have, he generally smashed.

    1. Nathan (@il-ferrarista)
      25th June 2015, 1:29


  21. There is absolutely no-way you can choose between these drivers without picking dominante stats… the only difference’s in that case is one is French and one is German. I’ll be thinking about this all night.

  22. Alain Prost, ’cause race in the time that had many good pilots, Schumi doesn’t have great opponents

  23. This is the hardest one so far. Not only do they have impressive racing resumes, but their run in the Champion of Champions has seen them take out some pretty impressive drivers.

  24. Prost for me, only due to his teammates

  25. Prost. He won four titles in nine years, coming second to Senna twice, missing a year when Mansell won, and lost two titles by a combined 2.5 points – to Lauda and Piquet. And in 1988, he scored more points over the season even though he didn’t win the title.

    Prost had extraordinary success at a time when the field around him was pretty tough, and could easily have won seven titles himself (although in fairness, in saying that, 1986 was perhaps fortunate.)

    Not knocking MS’s success, but Prost’s achievements were mega considering the opposition.

  26. I’m probably a wee bit older than most here, and watched live (and live on TV) most of the pilots in The CofC. For me, these two along with Stewart and Clark are head and shoulders above the rest.

    As to the ‘Ambassador’ argument, I fail to see what an off-track demeanour has to do with racing.

    Sure, Schumi was/is a bit of a goof, but that does not affect his right foot. In his prime, MS had all the attributes of a great formula one driver.

    I just feel Prost had them to an even greater level. I voted Prost.

    (Aside: Prost-Japan-89 is nothing like any of the stunts MS pulled. AP did not aim, but merely refused to cede or be intimidated.)

  27. I’m going with Prost. I think he was a better champion then Shumacher. Yeh Shumacher has 3 more titles then him, but how many more ould he have had is hadn’t have cheated, or Prost had stayed in it for longer? I know there just ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ but Prost gets my vote.

  28. easy choice again….. Schuey gets the vote.

  29. Oh, man. You know it’s coming and it’s still impossible to decide.


    No, Schu…, no. No, it has to be Pro, I mean Sch, eh, Pr.. err…

    *head explodes*

    So, I’m going to go ahead and make another choice based on things other than driving qualities. And you’ll have to excuse the rambling; as I start typing, I have not yet decided. When I stop, I may or may not have.

    As I’ve argued before, I feel Schumacher was probably the most dedicated driver ever in the sense that he committed more of his life to his driving job than anyone else ever. Including Senna. But he had his flaws on track. His competitiveness got the better of him on several, well documented occasions.

    But is that a minus point versus Prost? He may be The Professor, but he was not exactly squeaky clean either when it comes to on-track behaviour. Although perhaps the difference with Prost was that with him it seemed to be very specifically targeted at one other driver with whom it was a bit of a tit for tat kind of game. Also, it seemed to be a harsher era.

    Drivers died, quite frequently, and still others got in their cars and did their thing. Schumacher was one of the last drivers to still experience that part of the F1 life as well and perhaps it made him one of the last ones with that kind of commitment: to face death and carry on regardless. Maybe Schumacher in that respect was a casualty of taking the wrong ethic into a newly cleaned up time with no space for death-defying heroics, be that death your own or someone else’s.

    I’m.. really not sure. I want to vote Prost, because my rose-tinted glasses say he was a very sympathetic man. But then I think that neither is Schumacher as bad as he’s made out to be, nor was Prost probably as saintly as all that, as evidenced by the fact that he did win 4 championships, several at the expense of some very un-saintly characters themselves. So, I think in the end I’m back to sheer basic numbers. And no matter the number of could have beens, Schumacher wins that.

    Man, Keith. You owe me a new keyboard after all that :p

  30. I really don’t want to vote on this one… I think I”ll just toss a coin.

  31. I thought this was intellectually the most difficult call so far. (Not emotionally the most difficult — that was Prost vs. Häkkinen.) I voted Prost in the end, but it wasn’t easy.

  32. How many world champions had Michael to deal with in his own team. It’d be only 1, Piquet, for 5 races at the end of the Brazilian career (and still Piquet came out on top 6 points to 4). Now Prost … let’s see, Lauda 3 times WDC, Rosberg, 1 time WDC, Senna 3 times WDC, Mansell 1 time WDC (and the people’s hero) and Damon Hill, 1 time WDC. He could have banned Senna to join Mclaren in 1988. Senna is the reason Prost “only” got 4 WDC. Now who had to face Schumacher … the only serious contestant is Hakkinnen, but he was not competitive for a long time.

    1. Do you not think it is an indication of Schumachers quality that he made these otherwise decent drivers look average?

      1. Brownsugar42 (@)
        30th January 2011, 2:31

        No…example Austria 2002. Nuff said.

        1. A real example of his quality: France 2004. No wait, Hungary 1998. Or, maybe it was Spain 1996 I was thinking of? Or it could have been Monaco 1997, USA 2003, Belgium 1995 or Italy 1996…

          1. Austria 2001, Indianapolis 2002, Jerez 1997, Adelaide 1994 and the list goes on

          2. No it doesn’t go on oliver. Those are the only racing examples.

            There are far more examples of Schumacher showing that he is a great driver than there are of him being unsporting or whatever.

            And for the record, handing your teammate a win on the final lap in Indianapolis doesn’t count against MSC.

          3. Silverstone ’98, Spa ’00, Monaco ’06, Hungary ’10 …

          4. Silverstone 1998 was a case of poor stewarding, Monaco 2006 wasn’t a “racing” example, Spa 00 was Schumi defending his line, harshly, but fairly.

            As I said, there are too many superb drives to mention, so you still fail.

  33. Has to be Prost for me, tougher team mates,and If it were not for Turbo blow ups he could have been champ in 81, and 82 aswell.

  34. Prost deserves to be in the top four, no douct, but the stats say it all, and no matter how you twist or turn it, Schumacher was just better

  35. Schumacher, because Prost was rubbish in the rain.

    Otherwise I wouldn’t be able to choose. To be the champion of champions surely you have to be able to drive in all conditions?

    Adelaide 1989 seals it for me.

    1. Adelaide 1989 was sticking in my craw a bit…

      1. Does anyone know why he was so average in the rain? He was amazing everywhere else?

        1. Yes, the reason he had issues in the rain was because in 1982 at Hockenheim, he was invoked in the accident which ended the career of Didier Pironi. It was very wet and the viability was so bad that Pironi simply did not see Prost’s car, and ran into it on one of the long straights through the forest. Pironi’s injuries were so gruesome that Nelson Piquet, who had stopped to help, was sick at the side of the track. Prost was haunted by the whole episode for the rest of his career.

        2. he saw pironi’s accident in 1982 when the french’s career ended. he got scared, and was awful in the wet since then. He became better when traction control came into the sport, and he retired just before it was banned at the end of 1993. He was very concerned about the dangers of the sport.

  36. Wow!

    I voted Prost, its now 81 votes to Prost, 80 to Schumacher. So close!

  37. Being as Jackie Stewart, my forever personal choice as the all time ‘Champion of Champions’ has (as I expected) been ousted, I didn’t enter a vote for this match up. If I were to cast my vote, though, it would be for Schumacher. Like many others, I became a bit bored with the ‘Schui Show’ during the heyday of those years of Ferrari dominance. But that said, and even as superior as his machine was back then, it took a pretty special combination of driving skills, hard work, and developmental ability to maintain that level of excellence for so long. He’s occasionally ****** us off with some dodgy tactics (like Senna and Prost haven’t?), but his numbers are in a different F1 universe, probably never to be equalled. It would be cool to see ‘His Ancientness’ win another race or two! :)

  38. I went for Prost. The voting is sooo close.

  39. Why will the poll be open for that long?

    Both were great thinkers when they raced but I have to go for Schumacher.

    1. Two reasons:

      1. Give people more time to vote in the semi-finals.
      2. With launches and testing the ‘Final’ article would disappear off the home page very quickly.

  40. i remember watching schumacher on tv when i was little and only have good memories. I loved the way he used to dominated in his beautiful red car. if prost was a legend, then schumacher was a god during his peak.

    +1 schumi.

    1. The drive where he managed to claw his way on to the podium with a car that only had 4th or 5th gear was amazing.

  41. Hard for me to judge this one. Both Prost and Schumacher had power of veto over their teammates, both made questionable moves on-track in the pursuit of championships, and both were obviously brilliant in their day. But the fact that a very large chunk of Prost’s career was fighting against the guy who will be in the final against him or Schumi has to send my vote in Prost’s direction. Schumi fought and won against some fantastically talented drivers in decent (and sometimes better) machinery, but not against another True Great of the sport with equal equipment.

    Prost for me.

  42. Both Prost and Schumacher tried to end Ferrari’s barren streak and left championship-winning teams to join Ferrari.

    Prost nearly pulled it off in 1990, but his 1989 defensive maneuver on Senna bit him back, and pulled down Ferrari in the process. He called the Ferrari a truck in 1991, and weeks later, he was gone. 5 wins in 2 years, all 5 wins coming in Year 1.

    Schumacher edged closer and closer to winning it all, but couldn’t quite do so from 1996-1999. But when he figured it out along with Brawn and Byrne, DID THEY figure it out. Not only did they end Ferrari’s drought, they won 5 titles in succession. Along with that, 72 wins in 11 seasons, an amazing 6.5 wins a year for Michael at Ferrari.

    On that basis, Michael gets my vote.

    FWIW, this was an easier choice for me compared to MSC vs. Clark.

  43. however you spin this is schumi
    instead of being sentimental (I like both) i will put the math above the feelings
    prost: wins+podiums+polepositions+fastest laps (13years)

  44. ops hit submit
    however you spin this is schumi
    instead of being sentimental (I like both) i will put the math above the feelings
    prost: wins+podiums+polepositions+fastest laps (13years)
    51+106+33+41 = 231
    schui::wins+podiums+polepositions+fastest laps(17years)
    91+154+68+76 = 389

    if prost would have done 17 years as schui he would have had total 301

    so long way to go from schumi sorry alain

  45. If Schumacher had done better last year, ending in the top 3 with a couple of wins and beating his teammate, I believe the voting would be different. By coming back to the sport, and fighting the likes of Hamilton, Vettel Alonso (again) and Rosberg, who in lower Gp series was every bit as fast as Hamilton, truly is a titanic challenge (pun intended). Personally, to vote on this poll fairly, I would have to wait for this year’s result. Senna is obviously my favourite, but Scumacher and Prost are too close to call, and since Schumacher is still racing, this last hurrah could be the deciding factor for my own best ever list. He showed promise in the last few races of the championship…

    This new season is setting up to be the best ever! Cant wait!

  46. Schumacher just clinches it for me, very litte in this one, both deserve to be in the final

  47. I thought this was a lot easier than the Schumacher vs. Jim Clark choice. Jim Clark vs. Prost = Clark the Winner. I don’t know how Clark goes out before Prost. Prost is a top driver all time, but Clark, Senna and Schumacher, to me, are a 3 way tie with Fangio coming in 4th or also tying with the aforementioned greatest drivers in the history. I believe what is important to note here is the passion all of us have and these four names come up more than any others. Should Alonso and Hamilton start swapping more championships then they may also break into the top 10… Vettel is pretty young, but I don’t see the gusto required to be a part of this crew-yet anyway.
    It would be nice to have a fastest over a single lap championship as well because I have a feeling that Raikkonen went as far as he did just based on the amazing speed he showed over his career; too bad that Mclaren let him down so often! Would we put all these guys in the same order?

  48. Oh god this is difficult, the two greatest champions in my mind.

  49. SennaNmbr1 (@)
    30th January 2011, 7:47


  50. The final is obiously gonna be between Senna and Schumi. As always…

    Anyway, I think Prost was the better one. Michael won more but didn’t have the competition Prost had. I think Prost did a brilliant job next to Lauda, Mansell and Senna, all at one time or another in the same car.

    Big champs have to beat big champs. Otherwise you can’t know how good someone really is. If Manchester United only has to play against Fulham, Wigan and Stoke they will definitly become champions. But than I still don’t know how good they really are.

    Alain Prost beat the greatest, so he was truly one of the alltime best.

  51. i think schumacher was a faster driver. Faster in the wet, better qualifier, etc.
    On the other hand, when he had to fight for the title in the last race, he always made some kind of mistake.
    Prost was a master on that respect, at the level of senna. He was very good under pressure. Eventhough he wasn’t as fast as schumi.
    The competition is looking for the champion of champions, and in that respect i vote for prost.

  52. I was at the Hungaroring in 2005. Schumi’s pole was amazing and I still remember the surprise and thrill from all the people watching. Not only his fans but everybody around me cheered in awe and surprise.

    To me he is the greatest and I hope der Kaiser will prove me right by winning that 8th title!

  53. Prost.

    He and Senna totally dominated F1, grinded everything else to dust, amazed, thrilled and inspired a whole generation.

    Schumacher emerged from the pack, as one of the less mediocre drivers, once all the greats had disappeared and picked up the crumbs while F1 lay in shambles.

    1. Schumacher emerged from the pack, as one of the less mediocre drivers

      Less mediocre? Well, haters gonna hate…

  54. If Schumacher is better than Alonso, Clark and Prost (which he isn’t), he should also beat Senna.

  55. I like Prost much more but this is not fan vote. so I went to Schumi. It should be closest ever but I’m sure Schumi will win in the end.

  56. Close, but it’s Prost for me. Schumacher’s numbers may be slightly better but his long list of, shall we say questionable driving choices? loses it for him.

    1. I agree.

      MS loses for me mostly based on his lack of sportsmanship. Prost was brilliant and very fair on the track. That is is very important to me, so Prost gets this vote.

  57. Alain Prost is the top man here.He had better competition then M.S. including his teammates.Schumi did what he did because he had FULL team backing plus WAY superior machinery in at list 3 titles that he won.Not to mention his dirty driving through his whole carrier.

    1. He received full team backing because Schumacher was by far the most dedicated driver. Alonso is similar on today’s grid.

    2. His machinery was only “way superior” in 2002 and 4.

  58. Prost for me.

  59. it’s always difficult to compare people based on the talent they had to compete against. Prost had some true legends around his time in F1….was that a help or a hindrance?.
    Much is said that Schumacher benefited from a less competitive environment, but consider such multiple champions in other sports such as lance armstrong, michael jordan, tiger woods, kelly slater….all great champions because they beat who was on the start line/court/course with them….that’s what they had to beat wasn’t it?….who lined up opposite them. Does one outstanding person dimish the efforts of the others, who no doubt did want to win just as much?
    This is a tough choice as 2 distinctly different drivers who both achieved so much in their chosen sport. Prost was someone I used to cheer against when he was racing senna, but he was simply awesome at his best. Schuey changed the way drivers and teams approached F1 and will long be considered one of the greats….but the greatest…???????

  60. I can’t believe it, I want Prost to win, and now he’s agains Schumacher… Great!

  61. Prost was faster then Senna, Mansell, Rosberg, Lauda and Hill in the same cars. That is Five World Champions!

    Not only can Schumacher not claim that, I don’t think anyone can!

    Schui was and is Magnificent, Alain was truly Magical.

  62. Looks like Michael “Numbers” Schumacher is going to take this one. But for me, Prost got my vote.

    I’m not saying Schumi wasn’t an outstanding driver, he clearly was. But you can’t compare his teammates and competition with Prosts. It’s as simple as that.

  63. Wasn’t it a fact that prost fled mclaren, because he didn’t want to share a team with senna. This because he clearly lost the battle (and team) to him.
    Second to me real champions are excellent in all conditions (dry, rain and everything between), Prost wasn’t.
    1) Champions always want the #1 spot, so i don’t care if schumacher had lesser teammates (btw lesser but not as bad as people claim they were)
    2) He took a step back after his WDC titles and built ferrari back up and dominated with them. Yes Brawn (who went to Ferrari because of Schumacher) and todd played a part, but it wouldn’t have happened with another driver (the dominance i mean, so not saying they wouldnt have won 1 title). Also the likes of fangio, senna prost were always looking for the best car, so i dont think they would have build ferrari up
    3) He was almost always on and over the limit of the car with races like hungary 98, spa 95, barcelona 96 and 94 (5th gear), comeback 99 after broken leg, brazil 06, first victory 92, first qually 91 etc for example.

    well i voted schumacher. Prost was a great driver in dry though.

    1. I agree with what you said about Schumacher, but not with what you said about Prost.

      Prost didn’t lost the battle to Senna, he won. He scored much more points than Senna in both 88 and 89. He left McLaren because the team was biased towards Ayrton (Ron Dennis admitted that) and Prost did all the development and testing, he stated he didn’t want to do Senna’s homework anymore.

      Real champions are excellent in all conditions…we could say: great cars, average cars and bad cars. Between Senna, Prost and Schumacher, Prost is the only one who was champion with a clearly inferior car (1986). He also led most of 1983 season with an inferior Renault.

  64. Prost for his driving divinity.

  65. Didnt think at this stage i’d say this but i went for Schumacher at a Canter. Every thing i looked at said Schumi. All the above stats say Schumi escpecially having eliminated Clark who i rate much higher than Prost.

  66. Keith
    Had all race results counted towards points, how many championships would Alain have won (I.e dont drop any results)?
    I’ve always wondered but never had time to calculate it.

  67. Schumi for me. Prost was brilliant, no doubt. But the way Schumacher helped to build up Ferrari from nothing, to total domination for years was incredible. Also i don’t think that Schumacher had less competition then Prost, as some people say, i just think Schumacher was so good he made everyone look like schoolboys.
    Not only was Schumacher a fantastic driver, but his ability to push the team, even the tyre manufacture to give him just what he wanted was incredible.

  68. sorry can never forgive schumi for deliberate cheating in 94, illegal car in 95, deliberate attempt to drive Villeneurve off in 96, the debacle of Austria in 2002 and what a disgrace at Monaco to try and stop Alonso. A supremely talented driver beyond doubt, but greatness is bigger than that and he doesnt possess that quality. (if you think he’s changed , speak to Rubens after Hungary last year.)

    1. same feeling exactly.

    2. speak to Rubens? Even if someone rolls his eyes at Rubens, he is going to the press to complain… such a overreacting genius !!

    3. yeah right speak to the drama queen Rubens…

    4. illegal car in 95

      All I remember from 1995 was Schumacher winning the title by 33 points in the second best car. And a perfectly legal one, too.

      And Rubens is a drama queen. Schumacher accidentally blocks him for 2 corners, makes it to Q3, yet still whines while trying to remind everyone that he is a “cool guy”. I prefer to call him “Whiney Mr Blah, blah, blah”.

      1. “accidentally blocks him for 2 corners in Korea”

      2. Rubens does over react sometimes, but try and see past your admiration of Schumacher and take off the blinkers. What he did to Barrichello in Hungary was unacceptable.

        I’m not sure what he’s referring to in ’95, I know there were rumblings the fuel Benetton were using was illegal, but Williams were similarly accused with Schumacher and Coulthard both being disqualified from a GP (I think it was Brazil)before being reinstated later on.

        ’94 is the one talked about with rumours of an illegal car, with the traction control software found in a sub menu on the Benetton.

        1. Ok, my comment was a bit OTT. Schu definitely shouldn’t have done what he did in Hungary.

          I just don’t like Barrichello’s attitude at times, not least his comments after Korean qualifying and Germany 09.

          And both Benetton and Williams lost their constructors points after Brazil 1995, but the fuel irregularities were not down to Schumacher trying to cheat as smudgersmith suggested.

          1. I understand that. The way Barrichello talks sometimes it’s like he feels the whole world is against him. Respect his longevity but last year was a case in point, he had a title winning car but it was Button who made the most of it.

      3. ha ha… nice one !!

        He also mentioned in some interview that he is a down to earth guy – not really sure what that means in his opinion. That would be good to know.

        1. Schumacher’s unacceptable behaviour…….. show me a true great in a sport who isn’t controversial! I’m fairly sure Prost has had his moments of controversy too, but people seem to jump on the bandwagon of hatred for Schumi. I personally believe we should be grateful we lived in a generation where one driver was so great, so dominating, so commanding that people have to resort to poking fun at any little thing he does in his career. Sure, he nearly drove another driver into a wall, but lets look at the facts, Michael had track position (he was infront of Rubens) and made one single defensive move, it was Rubens who didn’t yield even though he should have! Anyway, lets not run through things that happened in the past that have no relevance to this, and yet again I look at the stats of 1 win in every 3 races, 25% poles, 7WDC’s, rebuilding a mid table team into a dominant force and I cannot see past Schumi, he’s got my vote all the way through this now

          1. I never said Prost was an angel, he wasn’t and neither was Senna but the Hungary incident was in no way Barrichello’s fault. You say ‘sure he nearly drove another driver into a wall’ at nearly 200 mph as though its not a big deal, just as some Senna fans try to justify what he did at Suzuka 1990.

            If Barrichello had crashed it would have been huge, we are talking just a few mm further to the right and he has a crash of the scale of Kubica’s in Canada a few years back. I am not one of those people who cannot put a dislike of Schumacher’s on track behaviour to one side when considering his achievements, but there are three drivers who I rate more highly than him: Clark, Senna and Prost.

      4. i think he means 94, there was launch control. But that’s F1 try to find ways to have the best car and the fia has to find it and ban or rewrite the rules. RedBull in 09 (stricter checking rules), renault in 06 (banned halfway, i forgot what it was) etc. i don’t hear nobody whining about that after 16 years.

        the 95 was quick, but very diffficult to drive.

        rubens still thinks he could have beaten schumacher that says enough.

        1. He couldn’t even beat Jenson in the same sister Brawn GP car in 2009. Beating Michael would be a Saturnalia miracle. Keep dreaming big guy

  69. I registered only because I’ve got tired of reading of Michael’s fans comments.. PROST GETS MY VOTE! It’s a Champion of champions pole, not my childhood hero pole. Schumi’s record looks amazing probably more than Prost’s but I don’t remember to watch his Ferrari teammates to race him for the title… I know, I know. It’s not his fault he was so dominant! against who? Rubens? Felipe? Yip they are top class like Senna.. Sorry to be ironic. Massa was very often better than Schumacher at many races before Schu retired and I hope that you all saw that Felipe helped Ferrari at that time/ helped Michael to face Alonso. And Alonso of course won only because he had the better car. Michael won 7 titles because of his pure skill… Give me a break! More competetive drivers/ cars and teammates at his time- as I said “Prost gets my vote!”. People please remember that Michael always wins on stats (not always %) and we’re here to judge the drivers not only statistics which as we all know are often a result of superior car. I believe it was harder for Kubica or Rosberg (f.e.) this season to score podium finish than for Vettel to win 2010 championship. In terms of the car of course… to have 1 title more or just have a title doesn’t mean that the driver is better. Vettel vs Giuseppe Farina both 1 time champs. Vettel vs Kimi? Finally Vettel vs Weber- Vettel won this year but is he without a doubt better than Mark? If so Michael probably will be the champion of champions… I just don’t think that one title more or less should be so important- they are all champs for gods sake! My private final Prost vs Fangio. And it would be great to see Juan win. Champion of champions should include some historical differences, right?
    But anyway this pole still was tough for me. If Schumacher faced Senna I probably voted for Michael… Cheers!

    1. Yet it seems a lot like a childhood hero pole…

    2. Massa was very often better than Schumacher at many races before Schu retired

      Massa outqualifies Schumacher 4 times in 18 races (one of them was even because of a penalty for him and Alonso, not Massa’s speed) and he’s “very often better”? That’s a good joke.

      Finally Vettel vs Weber- Vettel won this year but is he without a doubt better than Mark?

      Yes, he is.

      1. Massa outqualifies Schumacher 4 times in 18 races (one of them was even because of a penalty for him and Alonso, not Massa’s speed) and he’s “very often better”? That’s a good joke.

        I remember that in 2006 Felipe finished 5 races in front of Michael and if my memory doesn’t lie to me Ferrari had two 1-2 won races with of course Felipe at the back. Good thing that Michael was 4th at the Brazilian GP but still I believed that Massa could “accidentally” hit the brakes wrong and take out Fernando.

        Yes, he is.

        I’m just not quite sure as you. Tell me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Weber on top of the drivers standings most of the season(ok, Vettel had more poles)? So it seems Vettel is better than Alonso too ’cause Fernando just like Mark for some reason made a fluke with a pit stop… For me is to soon to say which RB driver is better. All I know is that Vettel won despite his stupidity at Turkey and few errors.

        1. You are yourself talking against looking at statistics, yet you just brought them up to ague that Mark might be better, or equal to Vettel, but as you say yourself you need to look at the races, not just the numbers, why Vettel was behind mark most of the season? Had Vettel had a car as reliable as Marks, he would have won the title in Korea.
          furthermore the champion of champions don’t necessarily need to be the best behind the wheel. Schumacher was a large brick in the puzzle to get Ferrari on top of the others. The way he pushed everything to maximize the result was one of the reasons he was able to win 7 titles. He was arguably the hardest working champion ever and that shows in the statistics.

        2. I remember that in 2006 Felipe finished 5 races in front of Michael

          5 out of 18. 5/17 since both drivers crashing out in Australia doesn’t really count. So the statistics you use don’t favour your argument. But it gets worse.

          I assume you meant Malaysia, Hungary, Turkey, Japan and Brazil. In Hungary, Schumacher finished 8th, Massa 7th.In the race Schumacher was fighting for a podium in the closing stages, Massa was nowhere.

          In Japan, Schumacher was leading comfortably until engine failure, Massa had to be promoted to second place behind Alonso. Nothing to do with Massa being better than Schumi.

          still I believed that Massa could “accidentally” hit the brakes wrong and take out Fernando.

          Nothing of the sort happened or was even considered. Just a figment of your imagination.

          I’m just not quite sure as you. Tell me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Weber on top of the drivers standings most of the season(ok, Vettel had more poles)?… For me is to soon to say which RB driver is better. All I know is that Vettel won despite his stupidity at Turkey and few errors.

          Fair point, but in my opinion, Vettel is the better of the two. Webber lead the standings for a while, but I feel that he often lacked the raw speed of Vettel and made a similar number of errors which I will go through.

          His starts were poor; look at Valencia, Spa and Monza. He hit Hamilton in Australia twice, and once in Singapore. He crashed while trying to overtake a Lotus. Webber spun into the wall in Korea, wiping out Rosberg. On top of this he was simply devoid of pace in Bahrain, China, Germany and Abu Dhabi.

          Vettel clearly made mistakes in Turkey, Britain, China and Belgium, but otherwise didn’t really have off days in comparison to his teammate (apart from Canada).

          Mark had his good drives (faultless in Spain, Monaco and Turkey, good in Britain, Hungary and Singapore), but was too inconsistent to become champion.

          1. Add that, actually, it was Fisichella, Fernando’s mate, that hit Schumacher in Brazil GP and caused the puncture…
            I don’t think he did it on purpose, but imagine what could have happened if it was Massa hitting Alonso…

  70. What Prost made to Senna (and Senna made to Prost next year) was largely worse thanwhat Schumacher did to Hill or Villeneuve.
    Just have a look at the lines of the car and you will see how Prost and Senna respectevely on purpose choose the line to impact on the other car, while Schumacher wasn’t at all far from the normal line.

    We’re going to Schumacher against Senna, and to me it is the best final. They are the two most impressive drivers or modern era…

    1. Prost didn’t hit Senna in 89! Senna braked waaay later that lap on the chicane, he tried to overtake Prost in an impossible point, it could only work if Prost took his car out of the line. Niki Lauda said about the accident: “Why should Prost let Senna pass without a fight? Alain drove the normal fight-line, not zig-zag, we know that from Patrese. Alain did not at all drive unfair, the driver, who is behind the other is always guilty at accidents. Prost is absolutely innocent!”

      Senna did the same with Nannini later on the race, compare the two moves and see how Nannini had to lock his brakes.

      1. Look at Prost line: you can see it would have finished in the grass, BEFORE corner apex. He hit Senna on porpose.

  71. Keith, had you paired Michael against Fangio or against Senna, Michael would have come up as second best.

    But you paired him against Prost. He might just win this one.

  72. one year from now you will all laugh reading your comments about how great Schumacher is…all of you.

    1. We’re already laughing at all of your comments.

      1. You got that right David A..LOL

    2. Well, it is true that since his comeback his best result was … to beat Jim Clark in this poll!
      Anyway seven titles are there…are they remain there!

      1. “One year from now” will be the best proof that he was one of the greatest athletes that ever lived, right alongside Pele, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Valentino Rossi,…
        When I think again isn’t he 40something? And still driving formula one car? Sill competing with the best of the best? Even if he was behind the Virgin car in the grid he needs recognition because he can still handle an F1 car.
        And I will repeat myself once again: Senna is such a legend because he died driving, so does MSC need to die too too to become the greatest ever? If Senna was alive now, he would be as good as Prost, Lauda,…

    3. ha ha… Manu strikes again and makes us rofl.Keep entertaining us Schumi hater !!

  73. The professor, as the firt post stated, was stopped of a fifth championship only by personal decision, he retired (and probably took the best decision if we see Ayrton’s accident a year later). So it was “easier” (I’m not dismissing Schum) for Michael to be 7times world champion with a safer car, more reliable and in a verticalized team that worked just for him and not for the teammates

    1. I don’t think 1985 and 1986 McLaren and 1993 Williams was less “verticalized” than Michael’s Benetton and Ferrari…

  74. Why are you so biased after all this poll means nothing , Fangio still will be the greatest driver ever was despite our voting and Prost will be unmatched in his handling of a car despite your bias.

    1. Hope you’re right!

  75. SennaTheG.O.A.T
    31st January 2011, 2:22

    People speak and especially youngsters speak a lot about stats,wins e.t.c.
    But when we speak about talents Senna and Gilles Villeneuve are the Greatest ever.
    Schumacher is overrated.Prost was never aggressive and he was one of the most boring drivers ever.
    Over it and Senna will win against anyone.He is the Greatest ever.Gilles Villeneuve was also better than Schumacher and Prost.

    1. Don’t get ahead of yourself, Schumacher and Prost were better than Gilles Villeneuve, as good as the Canadian was.

      1. SennaTheG.O.A.T
        31st January 2011, 13:52

        You know nothing about F1 if you say that.
        Gilles was Top-3 talent ever.
        Senna,Clark and Gilles are the 3 Greatest drivers of all time.They are aggressive and faster than anyone and they hadn’t many times the best car.
        Schumacher won his 5 of his 7 titles in the worst era 2000-2006 with opponents like Montoya,Ralf and Coulthard(Who??).Hakkinen was the only great but still not Top-15 driver ever.
        And he won 2 with Benetton only because Senna died.
        Schumacher is a Top-10 driver ever but was never better than Senna,Clark,Gilles,Fangio,Stewart and Mos.
        And last year wasn’t faster than Rosberg.
        I don’t care his age because Fangio won chips in a bigger age than him.
        Prost at least had opponents and teammates like Lauda,Mansell and of caurse the Greatest ever Ayrton Senna..
        Stop youngsters speak about stats and wins..With some of the most dominant cars ever and with opponents like Coulthard,Ralf and Montoya stats,wins and championships means nothing.
        Now F1 is by far better than any year of Schumacher at Ferrari..
        Drivers like Hamilton would win Schumacher with the same car.
        And Alonso won against him 2006.
        So stop overrate him.

        1. And black&white tv is far better then LED/colour TV…ok we got you

          1. SennaTheG.O.A.T
            31st January 2011, 20:33

            Your example is bulls*** comparing TV with drivers.

          2. lol i’ applying about your unreasonable speaking about youngster and living in your 70s 80s world like your comment in other post. Btw Ipad is the new gadget

        2. They are aggressive and faster than anyone

          Is that the whole package though? Anyone can be “aggressive”, and indeed put it in the wall, or the 1988 Monaco armco. Aggression can pale in comparison to Schumacher’s unrivalled workrate and undeniable speed.

          they hadn’t many times the best car.

          The Mclarens in 1988-1991 weren’t the best car? Nor were the Lotuses in the 1960s? Give me a break.

          Schumacher won his 5 of his 7 titles in the worst era 2000-2006 with opponents like Montoya,Ralf and Coulthard(Who??).Hakkinen was the only great but still not Top-15 driver ever.

          Schumacher made these drivers look poor. Calling it the “worst era” is purely opinion.

          And he won 2 with Benetton only because Senna died.

          On your planet, do you have an alternate reality TV that allowed you to come up with that conclusion?

          I don’t care his age because Fangio won chips in a bigger age than him.

          Times change. In modern F1, slower reflexes at the wheel will be exposed far more easily than in the machines of the 1950’s. Poor comparison.

          Stop youngsters speak about stats and wins..With some of the most dominant cars ever and with opponents like Coulthard,Ralf and Montoya stats,wins and championships means nothing.

          Hilarious how you forgot about the 1996 Ferrari car. It’s easy to say championships mean nothing when you don’t like Schumacher.

          It’s clear that you know nothing about F1.

          1. SennaTheG.O.A.T
            3rd February 2011, 2:41

            Wow the Schumacher fanboy say that I Know nothing about F1.Well you were unborn when I watched F1..
            Senna had opponent a World Champion Prost..Schumacher had teammates like Irvine and Rubens…Even Berger was better than them..
            Also Schumacher’s opponents in his 5 titles with Scuderia were his brother,Montoya and Coulthard..Only Hakkinen was a good opponent..
            When he had a good opponent(and I’m not a fan of Alonso) at 2006 his lost.
            If you think Schumacher would win with Senna alive you have problem..
            Don’t compare Schumacher with Senna..Is blasphemy…
            You know nothing about Senna..He is the best ever,period!

          2. Wow the Schumacher fanboy say that I Know nothing about F1.Well you were unborn when I watched F1..

            Well, you’re the Senna fanboy, who earlier claimed that Villeneuve was better than Prost and Schumacher, without considering numerous factors in what makes a complete F1 driver. You are proving that you’ve not learned much in all those years.

            Also Schumacher’s opponents in his 5 titles with Scuderia were his brother,Montoya and Coulthard..Only Hakkinen was a good opponent..

            You’ve made the usual error of not considering that Schumacher made his opposition look poor. He competed against a field of talented racers in 2000-04 (including Raikkonen, Button and Alonso- world champions), who are underrated because Schumacher was simply on another level.

            If you think Schumacher would win with Senna alive you have problem..

            When you show me a logical argument rather than effectively screaming “SENNA IS THE BEST!”, i’ll take that claim seriously.

            Don’t compare Schumacher with Senna..Is blasphemy…
            You know nothing about Senna..He is the best ever,period!

            The only blasphemy here, is your utter narrow-mindedness. I have done plenty of research on Senna and Schumacher, so don’t write me off as a “Schumacher fanboy”. Senna was obviously your childhood hero, Schumacher was mine.

  76. Mention motorsport to anyone who doesn’t follow it the one name they will know is Michael Schumacher. I think the statistics speak for themselves

  77. prost. easily.

  78. My vote goes to Schumacher. Although I am definitely not a fan of both drivers (as a person), they deserve the respect as being up there with the best drivers in the world.

    Personally I think Schumacher is faster and more of a racer than Prost. Both are definitely very consistent, as the stats show. But personally I think Prost settled for second place too many times, while Schumacher just gave another 10% extra to come out on top.

  79. Professor Prost, i think he was a better champion

  80. I signed up only to vote against Schumacher.

  81. Oh gosh, both legends. I’m picking Schumacher for a few factors i strongly value.
    He is a real racer in rain conditions, better than Prost was.
    He was able to compete for the championships in 1997-2000 with definitely weaker cars (although with a progressively narrower gap), and they were years (it’s the case even now) where the regulations, the excessive stress on aero and electronics and so on made close to impossible for the driver to make some sort of a difference.
    He built Ferrari back to be at the top of the game, a task which Senna gave up on for instance. I can’t see any other driver with that kind of commitment, in recent history at least.

    As a side note, i think the idea of “Best Driver Overall” make sense and has a deep value, and these two are the best ever in this category to me.

  82. I am late on this one, but it’s Prost for me. Just a better driver, less mistakes and he had to deal with Senna and Piquet two great champions. Schumacher had only Hakkinen as a real opponent and.. got beaten.

    1. One might say his only opponent was Adrian Newey…

    2. Schumacher had only Hakkinen as a real opponent and.. got beaten.

      I disagree. You need to look at seasons when both of them had a shot at the championship. ’99 doesn’t count because Schumacher missed nearly one-third of the season due to his accident. Which leaves 1 championship for Schumacher (2 if you count 2001) and one for Hakkinen.

    3. Schumacher had only Hakkinen as a real opponent and.. got beaten.

      1. Michael Schumacher 108 points, 9 wins
      2. Mika Hakkinen 89 points, 4 wins

  83. My vote goes to Professor Alain Prost -consummate driver , not a ‘bully-get-out-of-my-way’ “racer” like Schumacher and Senna. Prost out-thought and out-maneouvered his rivals . He admits that e.g.Senna was way out in front of him in qualifying ,but in most cases , he (Prost) could match or beat Senna on race day (where it counted). Even Senna acknowledged this , often (sneakily sometimes) copying Prost’s car set-up .
    Schumacher was obviously fantastic , but was ‘lucky’ to not have the quality of drivers against him that Prost had – and he had more reliable cars . I still think Prost would have won more races had he not suffered many more mechanical/technical faults than for example, Senna did (in the ‘same’ McLaren team). But he also had his share of luck as well ,one has to admit (Australia 1986).
    Many thanks. Lloyd

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.