Champion of Champions Final: Senna vs Schumacher

Champion of Champions

Champion of Champions: Ayrton Senna vs Michael Schumacher

After almost 20,000 votes, Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher have been drawn against each other in the Champion of Champions Grand Final.

In a way it’s quite appropriate, as it presents one of the great unanswered questions of modern Formula 1.

Namely, how the 1994 season would have played out had Senna not lost his life at Imola three races in. And how much longer these two would have gone on fighting for race victories and championship titles.

Their achievements in Formula 1 are sufficiently well known (and have been covered earlier in this series several times already) that they hardly require repeating.

It’s down to you to pick which of these drivers stands out among F1’s 32 title winners as the Champion of Champions.

Cast your vote below and explain who you voted for and why in the comments.

Ayrton Senna Michael Schumacher
Ayrton Senna, McLaren, Hockenheimring, 2004 Michael Schumacher, Ferrari, Hockenheimring, 2004
Titles 1988, 1990, 1991 1994, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004
Second in title year/s Alain Prost, Alain Prost, Nigel Mansell Damon Hill, Damon Hill, Mika Hakkinen, David Coulthard, Rubens Barrichello, Kimi R??ikk??nen, Rubens Barrichello
Teams Toleman, Lotus, McLaren, Williams Jordan, Benetton, Ferrari, Mercedes
Notable team mates Alain Prost, Gerhard Berger, Mika Hakkinen Nelson Piquet, Eddie Irvine, Rubens Barrichello
Starts 161 268
Wins 41 (25.47%) 91 (33.96%)
Poles 65 (40.37%) 68 (25.37%)
Modern points per start1 11.68 14.05
% car failures2 20.50 8.21
Modern points per finish3 14.70 15.30
Notes Won three titles in four years with McLaren Missed several races in 1999 after breaking his leg at Silverstone
Controversial clash with Prost sealed second title Retired in 2006 after 11 seasons with Ferrari
Killed in third race for Williams in 1994 Returned with Mercedes in 2010
Bio Ayrton Senna Michael Schumacher

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

Which was the better world champion driver?

  • Ayrton Senna (54%)
  • Michael Schumacher (41%)

Total Voters: 806

Loading ... Loading ...

Third place play-off

In true World Cup fashion there’s also a play-off for third place:

Which was the better world champion driver?

  • Alain Prost (45%)
  • Juan Manuel Fangio (51%)

Total Voters: 715

Loading ... Loading ...

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.

These polls close on February 13th.

Champion of Champions – voting so far

Champion of Champions table

Champion of Champions table (click to enlarge)

Thanks to Emory McGinnis for producing the Champion of Champions table.

Champion of Champions

Browse all Champion of Champions articles

Images ?? Honda (Senna), Ferrari spa (Schumacher)

Advert | Go Ad-free


450 comments on Champion of Champions Final: Senna vs Schumacher

  1. Cristian (@cristian) said on 5th February 2011, 18:28

    My vote for the best ever driver : Michael Schumacher. Too bad he already won the final against Alain Prost.

  2. dkfone said on 5th February 2011, 18:33

    Schumacher for me but Senna always wins these poll things. People seem to overlook Suzuka 1990 and yet constantly harp on about Jerez 1997. Also those who make that argument that his career was cut short, do you honestly think he would have won another 50 gran prixs to equal schumachers tally. To those who use the Schumacher vetoed his teammates line, Senna refused to allow Lotus hire Derek Warwick alongside him, need I go on. Sorry if this comes across as overly pretentious but Senna and Schumacher both have strengths and weaknesses. Why the constant reverence of Senna and judgemental attitude towards Sch?

    • sw6569 (@sw6569) said on 5th February 2011, 19:33

      I agree with this largely. The drivers were as bad as each other when it comes to picking drivers and on track antics. They differ slightly in personality though, although this is perhaps more due to the more open, philosophical attitude that Senna had compared with Schumacher.

      The main difference between the two is the ‘competition’ argument where people say that Schumacher had no competition for his titles etc. I’d dispute that too – in fact, it was just that Schumacher was so good that we never saw his real competition. People forget it is still a great skill to win with a dominant car – in such a dominant way [i.e. Vettel had the dominant car this year, but made mistakes and only won in the last race].

    • Patrickl (@patrickl) said on 6th February 2011, 9:29

      With Senna it’s Suzuka 1990.

      With Schumacher it’s: traction control 94, black flag Silverstone, Adelaide 94, Jerez 97, Austria 2002, Monaco 2006.

      Besides, it’s also tainted with the whole FIArari thing since 97 (veto + 80 million a year bonus)

    • montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 6th February 2011, 12:57

      Couple of points I want to add to Patrickl reply here:

      1)Some people tend to forget that before Suzuka 1990 there was Suzuka 1989, while there was no Jerez 1996, no Adelaide 1993, no Monaco 2005 etc. etc. It’s not just a simple multiplication of cases, it’s the nature of the man. Would Suzuka 1990 happen this way if Senna wasn’t robbed of his win a year before(not to mention the pole position side row)? Highly unlikely. There’s no reason to believe that about any of Schumi’s cases.

      2) A minor point, but Senna wouldn’t have had to get 91 wins to match Schumi as he would have probably got 10-15 wins less. And even if he wouldnt have catched him, on the upside Schumi would never beat Senna’s pole record had Senna lived(it took him over 240 races to amass 65 poles, Senna took 161 races to get the same amount). Wins aren’t the all n all statistic that means everything.

      One more thing, Senna clearly argumented the reason why he blocked Warwick ver openly: Lotus, in the disarray that it was in the mid-1980’s, wasn’t funded very well and couldn’t support more than one fast driver. Senna didn’t have any problem whatsoever going against Prost in the Mclaren did he? Or in the Williams in 1993, while Prost blocked the move with his contract clause. With Schumacher it was completely different to this.

  3. Cristian (@cristian) said on 5th February 2011, 18:35

    ANd Schumacher was third, almost runner-up, in his first full season in F1(1992). Senna was behind rookie Schumacher in the standings although his McLaren was much more better.

    • Cristian (@cristian) said on 5th February 2011, 18:39

      And Schumacher was 3 points behind Patrese who drove for crushing Williams that year.

    • Patrickl (@patrickl) said on 6th February 2011, 9:30

      Benetton had the works Ford engine while McLaren had the customer version. There was at least 3 tenths a lap difference between the two.

      • Cristian (@cristian) said on 6th February 2011, 10:09

        You didn’t know what to say so you posted that? I thought the McLAren was exactly 0,233978 faster :))

        • montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 6th February 2011, 12:29

          Senna 1992-3 wins. M. Schumacher 1992-1 win. Anyone who saw 1992 knows who was better. And you also kind of shot yourself in the foot with the Patrese follow-up: that only shows the final point tally isn’t always the right criteria to judge comparative performance.

          P.S. Didn’t know what else to write, so really had to write this and I apologize if it disagrees with your slightly misinformed opinion…

          • Cristian (@cristian) said on 6th February 2011, 15:51

            It isn’t then spectacular that Schumacher beat in his rookie season Senna and was 3 points behind a driver in the best car( a car that won the season 5 races before the ending if I remember well)?
            Well, I guess any other rookie driver did kind of the same then if you say it isn’t a great achievement.

          • montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 6th February 2011, 23:58

            Christian did you see any of the 1992 season live or on tape? unlikely, ’cause if you did you wouldn’t say any misinformed comments such as this. The only reason Schumi was close to Senna that year was because of Benetton much superior reliability. Senna was in front in the vast majority of the qualy/races and then the car broke down. It was a good season for Schumacher but in no way he was better, or on the same level with Senna.
            Don’t you see the problem with your Patrese comment? Mansell won 9 races with that car. How many races won Patrese?(clue:less than Senna, more than Schumi). Yes, Patrese finished the season in front of both Senna and Schumi in the points, but would anyone in his right mind ever consider Patrese performance a better on e than those two. That means comparing drivers just for their end of season tallies is a flawed method of judging performance. To judge Senna and Schumi that way is at best misinformed and then bring in Patrese , can be seen only as hypocritical IMO.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 6th February 2011, 13:33

          The car was faster, but that was despite the engine being slower?

        • Roberto said on 6th February 2011, 15:51

          Benetton was slower than McLaren! Even with Schummy standing ahead of Senna, McLaren was ahead of Benetton in constructor’s championship!

          The McLaren engine was a older spec F1 engine (by no means a “customer” version), which is not necessarily slower.

          You’re forgetting last year champion Red Bull had a Renault engine, and was years ahead of, say Force India with the best Mercedes engine.

          Saying Benetton was faster because of the engine is not acurate, if you actually compare lap times you’ll see McLaren was faster. And McLaren’s second driver (Berger) scored more points than Benetton’s second driver (Brundle), and even won 2 races!

          So Schumacher actually beat Senna in his almost rookie year, with a slower car. And was only three points behind Patrese, who drove a flying Williams!

          • damon said on 6th February 2011, 16:46

            the reason schumacher beat senna in 92 was down to awful reliability of the mclaren

          • montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 7th February 2011, 0:05

            I agree with damon.

            And I dont see how you can compare the RB situation with 1992 Mclaren. RB had absolutely the same engine as Renault. Mclaren had engine which was two specifications behind Benetton( in an era when engine development wasnt stopped as it is now)!

            Despite the worse engine Mclaren had better aero so was faster. But Benetton had much better reliability so it negated the speed advantage. All this means that Senna was faster, was usually in front of Schumi but with the retirements didn’t get the results he deserved.

  4. GeeMac (@geemac) said on 5th February 2011, 18:36

    My avatar says it all…

  5. LucienTodutz (@lucientodutz) said on 5th February 2011, 18:38

    Schumacher is the greatest!!!

    know it’s not very personal, but NUMBERS DO NOT LIE!!!
    I think that they are equally fast, although Senna has more poles percentage, Schumacher proved that he has the speed in his blood not only on 4 wheels but also on 2 wheels, remember Schu testing the Ducati MotoGP bike, he scored some great laps on the time sheets and also he was pretty good in the races that he attended (remember he was 39ish).

    Honestly, you ca not compare Senna to Schu, they are so different in many ways… Schu is a complete modern driver not only from the race point of view but also from the capability of developing a winning car… Senna had that something, that instinct that made him special, but if we look back, nowdays a lot of his driving and overtaking, I’m sure he would be considered extremely reckless and nowdays would not achieve so many… Remember Schu’s move on Barichello last year, omg, the fuss behind that…

    In conclusion:

    Schumacher = GREATEST EVER !!!
    Senna = biggest natural talent in F1 racing.

  6. Everthing that involves the best of all the time end up on a Senna-Schumacher battle. And it’s to end up on it.

    Senna was from the very beginning a great driver, he was above average, fast, did unbelievable things on track.

    Schumacher is another great driver. Started in F1 with an enourmous moral, being hired by Benetton on his second race. Everyone knew he would be a winner. Now he holds all the records.

    Both of them are great, but for everything that Senna made while he was on track, he deserves to be recognized as the best. And he had great opponents, great champions. Schumacher didn’t.

    • Cristian (@cristian) said on 5th February 2011, 18:47

      Perhaps Schumacher made great drivers look ordinary when compared to him!

    • Mike (@mike) said on 6th February 2011, 7:26

      Explain how Hakkinen is not a great champion?

    • Roberto said on 6th February 2011, 15:59

      but for everything that Senna made while he was on track, he deserves to be recognized as the best

      that’s quite subjective.

      If you look coldly at the facts, it turns up that Senna had a astonishing rate of poles but couldn’t manage to convert them into wins. This is a big minus. It’s exactly the opposite of Alain Prost, who got much more wins than poles. It proves Senna’s pace wasn’t good, and I fail to see how that support the claim that he’s the greatest ever.

      Also Senna won 3 WDC out of 4 years with the best car. And he wouldn’t even have won 88 championship with any other era’s F1 regulations. Now Schumahcer had a dominant car in only 3 years of his careers (99,02 and 04), and won 7 WDC. If i’m not mistaken, 7 is more than the double of 3.

      • Roberto said on 6th February 2011, 16:08

        As for the argument that Schumacher didn’t had any competition. Well Senna had Prost, Piquet and Mansell, but people forget that Piquet never had a competitive car after 1987, Prost didn’t had a decent car in 91, Mansell same thing in 88-89, Piquet and Prost retired in 91, Mansel in 92.

        Remember that in 88 Prost beat Senna, not by 1, 2 or 3 points, but by 11 points!More than 30 points in modern system.

        in 89 he was beaten again by the only competition he had

        In 1990 Prost was catching up at the end of the season, when Senna conveniently took him out in the most dangerous way.

        In 1991 the McLaren was still the best car, but Williams got better by the end of the season, and Senna did manage to beat Mansell.

        In 92 he was crushed by a superior Williams, and was beaten by 22 year old Schumacher.

        Lost to Prost in 93 (ok, he had a really superior car)

        In 94 he took 2 poles in the first 2 races, as usual, but failed to score a single point.

        So, although Senna had a much tougher competition than Schummy, he only managed to beat it in ONE season! (1991). And even then he still had the best car!

  7. Fixy (@fixy) said on 5th February 2011, 18:47

    Without doubt Fangio. For the same reasons I voted Schumacher: Fangio got everything he could and beat Prost. And Fangio could have won more if he hadn’t retired immediately after his 5 titles, a record that was beaten by the person that in my opinion should win the Champion of Champions. Fangio immediately set the record of most titles and was beaten by Schumacher. So definetely Michael should be voted the best driver ever and Fangio chould beat Prost as Schumacher should beat Senna.

  8. Gridlock said on 5th February 2011, 18:50

    Senna would risk killing a rival to win a world championship. Scumacher nearly killed either Barichello or someone exiting the out lane in a fight for 8th, I think?

    • LucienTodutz (@lucientodutz) said on 5th February 2011, 18:58

      read my post little bit up…

      Senna drove reckless race by race, corner by corner, if you compare it to now days, and when Schu does a Senna on Barichello you all the hypocrites yell out !!!

  9. Senna. He drove with such fine detail and his wet weather driving was beyond description, and we can only speculate what could’ve happened had that fateful crash at Imola never occured. There is a chance he could’ve been champion in ’94. Assuming he would’ve stayed at Williams for at least the next 3 seasons he would definitely have won at least 1 of them, before moving to Ferrari(as he once said he wanted to drive for them before he retired), with a small chance of winning the title with them before retiring in ’99 or ’00 at the latest. This would make him at least a 5 time world champion on par with Fangio in terms of statistics, or 8 times at the very most, with Schumacher 5 or 6 times champion. Again this is only speculation.

    • Cristian (@cristian) said on 5th February 2011, 18:57

      Schumacher was already 20 points ahead of Senna in the standings at the start of the race at Imola. Senna would’ve needed some more uncharacteristic consistency to win that title don’t you think?

    • LucienTodutz (@lucientodutz) said on 5th February 2011, 19:06

      Senna would never arrived at Ferrari… because when Todt took over as team boss, they wanted the best driver, and the best for the future, someone who could build a car, and that someone WASN’T SENNA, he never had the capacity of building a winning car, he was an aging dinosaur at that time…

      • lol…is Schumacher’s capacity of building a winning car the reason for Mercedes victorious performance ?

        • Cristian (@cristian) said on 5th February 2011, 19:52

          Every result post 1996 at Ferrari is BECAUSE of Schumacher. Because of what he did there Raikkonen won his championship and Alonso has a great car today. Ferrari was rubish for 20 years before Schumacher and even Prost couldn’t change that. That is why Schumacher is the greatest ever: for his legacy at Ferrari and for the fact that it may be true that more people heard of Schumacher than of Formula 1 itself!

          • montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 6th February 2011, 13:11

            what rubbish. Prost nearly won the championship in the Ferrari, Alboreto nearly won the championship in the Ferrari. in 1983 Ferrari were the constructors Champions. And Ferrari was on the upward curve ever since Todt’s arrival in mid-1993 already. In fact, Ferrari in 1995 had 73 points, in 1996 it had 70 points. Yes in 1996 Ferrari got 3 wins, compared to one in 1995, but that’s without counting the times Ferrari retired from the lead because of technical troubles.
            To say that all Ferrari got is because of Schumacher is complete desinformation and rewriting of history.Schumi’s a great driver, but he would do nothing without a great team Todt started to put together in 93-95 already.

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 6th February 2011, 19:26

            Again, Cristian and montreal you’re looking at things in a black and white manner.

            Was it solely Todt that put the team together? No. Was it solely Schumacher? No. It was a combination of Todt’s efforts, the Benetton staff, Schuamcher’s inspiration and on track driving.

            And perhaps Ferrari scored less in 1996 because Irvine underperformed in comparison to Alesi and Berger, with only 11 points. He at least got better by 1998.

          • Perhaps what Cristian main point is how Michael played a bigger role in early 1996 and make it becomes a winning team for years. Also should be remembered that in 1996 Todt offered his resignation because of many media in Italy criticized him failing to raise Ferrari. It was Michael who stand up to support Todt and started to identified what did Ferrari lack of. Despite Todt lacked of experience in F1 because he was more experience in Rally at that time, His presence in Ferrari indirectly made Schumacher as unofficial boss in the team.
            Read it from F1 Racing Schumacher tribute edition.

        • @Manu Again, nonsense comment made by you think i have to LOL again about it like we did before. Schumacher arrived at Mercedes last year with a car almost completely built and around Jenson driving style. As explained by Cristian, Schumacher raised Ferrari and made it into a winning team which not been the case since decades and it took years…

          • Pedal to the Vettel (@pedal-to-the-vettel) said on 6th February 2011, 1:04

            I think you will find the whole Ferrari team and car in general was rubbish until Todt, Brawn, Rory Byrne (chief car designer), 11 other “key” team players in Benetton and Schumi, all came in to sort things out. And lets not forget the helping hand of FIAT’s unlimited money involved of course.

            (sarcasm) So of course schumacher can make a team a bunch of winners all by himself. How hard is it to point at members of your old team saying, “sign him up he’s great”. Even I could do that…

            The unsung hero in Ferrari, Rory Byrne was of equal to Adrian Newey in his career, yet people undervalue Vettel’s WDC since Adrian Newey made the RB5-6 to what it is, Schumi had the same treatment in Benetton and Ferrari.

            The ferrari’s V12’s were also rubbish against the lighter V10-8’s of the Williams and Benettons. Ferrari only started to challenge world titles again when that lot came in and changed all that, all through most of Michaels campaign they were with him.

            Rory Byrne was the key factor in Ferrari’s dominance, not Schumacher, FACT, so don’t go posting about thinking Senna could not of done the same.

            What’s that phrase you lot say “maybe schumi was just that much better then the rest of the field?” I think it should be “schumi was lucky to have Rory Byrne as a car designer” more like.

            Every world title Schumacher has ever won, has been a design involving Rory Byrne.

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 6th February 2011, 5:00

            Rory Byrne’s role is often undervalued, but it isn’t as black and white as saying “Schumacher was the key factor” or “Byrne was the key factor”. They were all key. And that’s why Schumacher gets his share of the credit for Ferrari’s dominance.

          • Well said David A. Even Jackie Stewart believes the transformation of the Ferrari team was Schumacher’s greatest feat. The way he motivates and leads a team is one of Schumacher great ability perhaps Britney also can motivate a team by doing a stage performance :D

          • Patrickl (@patrickl) said on 6th February 2011, 9:35

            and of course a regulation veto and a 80 million a year bonus helped …

          • Pedal to the Vettel (@pedal-to-the-vettel) said on 6th February 2011, 12:56

            @ A David, sorry for the hoo haa from this post, was tired when typing it up and stressed.
            Yes I agree with you that schumi and Byrne together are not alone the key factors, that was a bit arrogant from me I’ll admit.

            @Dave I’ve read the book on Schumacher and he did motivate the team yes but only because the team motivated him as well, he had that urge in his mind to always thank every person in his crew no matter how little they done, he always felt compeled to do everyone a favour because they were helping him achieve greater things. If he felt he let the team down by a silly mistake he would repay with that by showing a better race next time. He was at home in Ferrari because he had the confidence of the people around him from his previous team.

            That Benetton team that went to Ferrari was the most solid group in f1 history and when they all started to leave schumi, they all got weaker from it.

            You can see why Schumi had no trouble being the number one in Ferrari since team ferrari didn’t have a choice or they lose the Benetton group.

          • Well maybe it sound little bit arrogant for you but it’s fact. It was Michael who brought Ross Brawn to Ferrari and the way he supported Todt when most of them criticized him and bringing the team into one family, how he give a lot of great input to the engineers to improved the car not to mention his determination and commitment to work till late night to sort thing out and made the engineer started to respect him and listen to his input. That’s one of many thing why most people believe that Michael play the bigger role to Ferrari success which some still ignore it and finding excuses to shot down the fact. If you are interested you can read F1 racing Schumacher tribute that sum it all nicely.

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 7th February 2011, 15:27

            and of course a regulation veto and a 80 million a year bonus helped …

            A veto which they never used, a historical bonus that applies to to all teams.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 6th February 2011, 13:36

          That can be judged only after 2011/2012. Schumacher had even less of a chance to help develop last years Mercedes as he had had with the 1996 Ferrari.

  10. kowalsky (@) said on 5th February 2011, 18:53

    senna because he gave me a lot of enjoyment watching him do those poles. On the other hand schumacher made me hate the sport for a while, because of his dominance.
    Both are great, and i think it’s a right final.
    But senna was the man.

  11. MaJIeBu4 said on 5th February 2011, 19:04

    Michael!!!! )))

  12. JPedroCQF1 (@joao-pedro-cq) said on 5th February 2011, 19:05

    Unfortunately, I never saw Senna racing. All I know about him came from blogs and sites like F1F, books and now the film. But from all I heard about him, my vote goes to Senna, instead of Schumacher who I saw 5 years in a row winning the championship, thinking that was true racing. After all, it was just a talented driver who won too much championships. That’s my opinion.

  13. infy (@infy) said on 5th February 2011, 19:12

    I believe surviving is a skill on its own. Senna was quick because he was reckless, which was also his downfall.

    Considering that, MSC has an overall better package as it allowed him to win more championships without falling prey to anything but age.

    My vote goes to MSC because the proof is in the pudding, and not in “what if” wonderland.

    • Maciek said on 5th February 2011, 22:46

      I believe surviving is a skill on its own. Senna was quick because he was reckless, which was also his downfall.

      Aside from the fact that it’s just seem to become an easy fad to say that Senna was reckless – mostly I magine by people who never saw him race – Senna’s accident was caused by a broken driveshaft. So how was his ‘recklessness’ his downfall?

  14. Sladex (@sladex) said on 5th February 2011, 19:17

    Unpredictable competitors are in the final ;)
    Seriously why didn’t we start with the final?

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 5th February 2011, 23:37

      Did you not see how close the semi-finals were? Take a look at the graphic.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 6th February 2011, 13:44

        Great you put the whole chart in there Keith. I loved to see how close it was.

        So the best 4 drivers are Prost, Fangio, Senna and Schumacher (order to be decided by poll).
        Nice to see these are pretty much different animals altogether.
        Superfast and always wanting to be up front Senna, doing all that to win and teambuild Schumacher, clever developer and points gatherer Prost and being in the right car/team to win and do so convincingly Fangio.

        I suppose only personal prences decide on ranking this pack from 1-4.

  15. the only qualified men on this planet to rate an F1 driver are f1 drivers and engineers…ALL of them agree that Ayrton Senna was the greatest driver ever lived…

    our personal opinion is only a way to express our love to one or the other.

    Ayrton Senna da Silva was one of the greatest MEN of the last century and all of you should feel proud that he was an F1 driver.

    • sw6569 (@sw6569) said on 5th February 2011, 19:36

      Thats a hugely sweeping statement to make, especially with no justification. Further, most of the engineers that worked with Schumacher never worked with Senna and vice versa. Pretty ridiculous to base your opinions on that.

      However, your last statement may well be true

    • Burnout (@burnout) said on 5th February 2011, 19:40

      Ayrton Senna da Silva was one of the greatest MEN of the last century and all of you should feel proud that he was an F1 driver.

      We do. But this is a ‘Champion of Champions’ poll. Not a greatest personalities poll.

    • Maciek said on 5th February 2011, 22:52

      Please explain the logic of why we should feel proud that Senna was an F1 driver?

      Look, man, he’s my favourite all-time driver, but get a bit of a grip before going with ‘greatest men of the 20th centur

Add your comment

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

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.