Ayrton Senna voted Champion of Champions by F1 Fanatic readers

Champion of Champions

Ayrton Senna, McLaren, Spa-Francorchamps, 1991

Ayrton Senna, McLaren, Spa-Francorchamps, 1991

Ayrton Senna has been voted the all-time Formula 1 Champion of Champions in a poll of F1 Fanatic readers.

The six-week-long series debating the greatest champions of all time saw over 20,000 votes cast and 4,603 comments posted.

Senna was picked over Michael Schumacher in the final round of the elimination tournament with 57% of the vote.

Given the differences between the drivers, the cars they had and the eras they drove in, finding a winner that a large majority agreed with was always likely to be impossible.

It would be too easy, and rather simplistic, to say that the choice of Senna was entirely down to his charismatic appeal and the untimeliness of his death.

Senna exploited the opportunities that were presented to him. In Formula 1 you will never win a world championship without a car that’s good enough to deliver it.

He had such a car from 1988-1991. In that four-year period he won three world championships, and lost the other because his principal rival drove into him.

The rest of the time he punched far above the weight of whatever he was driving.

In his first season he nearly won a race in a Toleman and in his final full year he won five races up against the devastating Williams-Renault FW15Cs.

Aside from his exceptional record – particularly his astonishing tally of pole positions – a recurring point in the discussions about Senna was the darker side of his talent. Particularly the crash with Alain Prost at Suzuka in 1990 that sealed his second title.

That cynical and dangerous act cannot be glossed over. But nor can we ignore that two of the other most highly-rated champions – Schumacher and Prost – won titles in similar circumstances.

We cannot say whether the races Senna never drove would have enhanced or diminished his reputation as a driver.

Judged solely on his record: for his strangle hold on pole position, for his wet weather genius, for his overtaking prowess, for taking on and beating a multiple champion in ‘his team’, and for the races and titles he won against top-drawer rivals, Ayrton Senna is a satisfying choice as Champion of Champions.

But he ‘greatest champion of all time’ argument is one that’s impossible to resolve. Hopefully this series has provided an entertaining and original angle on it, once which you enjoyed participating in.

See the Champion of Champions in stats to compare how all 32 F1 champions stack up.

Here’s a full breakdown of who won each round of Champion of Champions:

Champion of Champions - complete voting record

Champion of Champions - complete voting record

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

Champion of Champions

Browse all Champion of Champions articles

Images ?é?® Honda

Advert | Go Ad-free

190 comments on Ayrton Senna voted Champion of Champions by F1 Fanatic readers

1 2 3 5
  1. Legardism said on 14th February 2011, 17:17

    Congratulations Ayrton!

    • ssnares said on 15th February 2011, 0:51

      shumi should av won i bet most of the votes for senna we shumi h8rs garenteed!!!!

      • RIISE (@riise) said on 15th February 2011, 8:56

        I think it will take Schumacher to have serious accident to make him get immortal status. Which is incredibly wrong since he is simply the greatest driver there has ever been.

      • i agree, mostly voted on what if Senna had lived… there were many what if reasons given by ppl who voted for Senna. i’m sure if this poll was conducted in either Italy or Germany we would get a completely different result. biases exist & the popular bias wins always.

        • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 16th February 2011, 9:53

          if this poll was conducted in either Italy or Germany

          I don’t block visitors from Italy or Germany.

          Although the largest single nationality group is British there were no British drivers left by the semi-finals.

          So I don’t buy the usual boring ‘nationalism’ argument and, as I wrote in the article, I think the ‘Senna only won because he died’ argument is pretty flimsy too.

        • Victorinox said on 16th February 2011, 17:37

          The 2010 Formula 1 grid where German drivers were more numerous voted Senna the best. Schumacher voted Senna the best.

          I tell you what… you go run this poll in Germany and Italy, but after that do the same in Japan or Brazil and then come back and report your findings.

      • no

      • Coefficient said on 16th February 2011, 12:54

        Indeed!! I can’t stand it when people get all dewey eyed over Senna just because he died on track. Great driver, no arguments there but the stats speak for themselves. Schumacher wins hands down in this respect!! Also, people say that Schumacher’s legend is tarnished by a handful of dubious moves. Why then is the same not true of Senna who drove Prost off the road to win the title. Just one incident in a whole catalogue of career tarnishing manoeveres. It’s stupid!! Also, in Senna’s day there weren’t as many competitive teams, just a couple of dominant ones that he happened to drive for and the rest were knowhere. The same is not true of Schumacher. Schumacher had numerous works teams to contend with as well as several top line drivers, longer seasons and a wife and kids to consider.

        • Please, please get over it! “Only a few dominant teams”…. did you already forget that during most of Schumachers titles there was ONE, and only ONE super dominant team with ZERO competition! ONLY McLaren had the speed but reliability to finish only about 60% of the races while Schumacher drove more than 50 consecutive races without a mechanical failure, hence NO competition at all!
          We can discuss the circumstances forever but just like we cannot discuss who has the most titles we cannot discuss who won the poll, as a BRAZILIAN driver on a dominantly British site!
          Why? Because his driving has made lasting impressions of exitement on more people than any other driver. You can scream and yell all you want – but that you can never change!!

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 17th February 2011, 4:11

            This “no competition” argument gets boring. The Ferrari was only “dominant” in two seasons (2002 and 2004), three (2001) if you want to stretch the definition of the word to the limit.

            You cannot hold it against MS that he beat the other teams/drivers by a large margin. It’s a sign of his quality, more than it is of you thinking that no-one else was good.

        • Olivier said on 17th February 2011, 2:52

          Among the top drivers Schumacher had to face: Hill, Villenueve, Hakkinnen, Coulthard, Raikkonen. Team-mates? Massa, Barichello, Irvine, Helberth, Verstappen (how many world champions do you see?)

          Now Senna: Lauda, Prost, Mansell, Piquet. Team-mates? Hakkinnen, De Angelis, Prost, Hill (how many world champions?)

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 17th February 2011, 4:03

            But if Schumacher had won less, more of those drivers listed would have won championships, and indeed more races.

        • Woody (@mancsfinest) said on 28th December 2012, 17:06

          do the maths :
          Michael Schumacher – Seasons (1991–2006, 2010–2012) starts:308 and 68poles
          @22%,
          where as senna – Seasons 1984–1994 starts :162 poles: 65 @40.12% poles

          top couple should have been Clark,Fangio,Moss,Rindt,Senna going of stats…that is

  2. What a surprise.

    • Scribe (@scribe) said on 14th February 2011, 17:38

      I know right. Shocking, hands up if you predicted this first round. Too many emotional votes I suspect, twill ever be thus.

      Great fun though.

      • If he was still alive he would have gone out in round two

        • Andy W said on 14th February 2011, 19:02

          Really? If from every race on had never scored another point then maybe…

          Honestly I am not surprised Senna won, and I do think that his legendary status (of which his tragic death is definitely a part) played its part in his winning but the same also applies to Fangio and Schumacher, they each have their own legends…. Saying that so do Ascari, Stewart, Prost and Clark… maybe not quite so bright but….

          Anyway great Championship Keith, has been lots of fun reading, posting, thinking and arguing about this.

        • Zaphod said on 14th February 2011, 22:28

          You might want to consider how many championships he would have won it that were the case :)

          • Coefficient said on 16th February 2011, 12:59

            No more titles were coming his way at all. Senna was clearly in decline in 93 and 94 and Schumacher was well and truly in the ascendancy. Senna would have retired very quickly one he realised he couldn’t keep up with the young schumacher.

          • Coefficient, that is such an ignorant statement! Senna was absolutely spectacular in 93 when he finished second in the championship in a McLaren that was completely underpowered because Honda had left F1.
            In 94 active suspension was banned and the Williams FW16 suddenly wasn’t as superior as FW14 and FW25 had been. It was very difficult to drive but your only subject for speaking of decline in 94 is that he lost the car in the very first race in Brazil while he was hit and taken out by both Hakkinen and Larini in the race in Aida. He took pole in all three races of the season!
            DECLINE?!?

        • Anthony said on 15th February 2011, 3:27

          Well… ask Roland Ratzenberger if somebody remembers him..

          • Cappo Mark (@cappo-mark) said on 15th February 2011, 9:14

            I remember the great Ratzenburger.. Any F1 fan does and will rememeber him. It’s just Senna achieved more and was a big characyer in F1. Taking nothing away from Roland and in fact no one would apart from when sill suggestions like this arrive…

            Senna won because he was a GREAT!!!!!!!

      • F1iLike said on 14th February 2011, 19:07

        This is such BS! People looked at Senna this way way before his death. You don’t come a legend by dying. You become a legend from what you do in life.
        This misinformed BS about that he wasn’t anything special until he died got to stop. Please look at races and read things from before he died before making such stupid assumptions.

        • I have to agree. I read an article from the Team Manager at Williams, from the season of his death. They were only just getting to know him, but Senna was ‘the man’ in F1. He was interested in everything about it, about it, about people, about humanity.

          He was also very quick. Patrick Head said ‘Bloody Senna, he’s always there or there abouts isn’t he.’ Senna was standing right next to him at the time. Head apologised and explained it as a force of habit.

          Point is, at the time, he was the figure in F1, recognised as being by far the most talented. If he hadn’t of died, Newey, Head etc would have given him the car to win the championship.

          Saying all of this is because he died, is ignorant and poor taste to be quite frank. I remember great excitement when he moved to Willaims for the 94 season, simply because he was the best driver and most dedicated driver of his generation. He proved himself in cars with 1000bhp and drove them the way most can only dream about.

          I wasn’t a fan of him at the time, because I was 14 and wanted Hill to win. So think I can unbiasedly said that he would not of gone out in round one, or two or three if he was alive today. He would probably be fresh in the minds of many having won 1994 for his 4th WDC and maybe more.

          Add to this that 2 years back Autosport surveyed 217 current and past drivers of F1, and they agreed with this CofC result as regards to Senna.

          So before we all go suggesting he’s won because he’s dead, do some research and find out what people thought of him at the time. No doubt he has been glorified and worshipped by some, perhaps elevated to a higher status, but only because he was who he was. He was a ‘great’ at the time and he’s a ‘great’ now.

          • Mouse_Nightshirt (@mouse_nightshirt) said on 14th February 2011, 20:36

            I disagree with the statement that “he won because he’s dead”. However, I don’t dispute that it was a major contribution to how easily he did win and how much he occupies every F1 fan’s thoughts, past and present.

            Do you think JFK would have been as big a deal if he hadn’t been killed? Kurt Cobain if he hadn’t died? Yes, they were both very famous, but they became legends, in a way, through death. Sort of morbid but also very true.

          • @Mouse, I’m replying to some statements that said he wouldn’t of got past round 2 if he was alive.

            I’m also not denying death added to the allure and worship of the guy himself.

            However, strip away the reverence and go back to 1994, he was the most revered and respected driver in f1 at the time, and for many, of all time.

            The death just made a great driver, even greater in the minds of many. But he was great to begin with.

            As for JFK? Honestly? He’s the guy who pushed the moon landings to happen inside the decade, and handled politics completely differently to the old guard such as Nixon who was a bulldog.

            JFK was a humanitarian as well, like Senna in fact. People loved him at the time. He got the Americans through the Cuban missile crisis, when the country was preparing to be nuked and building bunkers in their gardens and buying as much canned food as possible. He spoke about withdrawing troops from Vietnam.

            So for that era, the era of the 60′s, in that world climate, JFK was a ‘great’ president to have. Positive, charming, light, clever, he even won a Pulizter prize!. When he died, he became a legend. But only because he actions in his lifetime put him in peoples hearts and mind to begin with.

            Kurt Cobain I care little about. He was a messed up but talented kid, I feel sorry for the guy. But again, his band were in the hearts and minds of people at the time, so his death meant something to them. Rock stars and celebrities seem to be a dine a dozen, drugs and suicide, and accidental death. Yet I don’t hear many people say Kurt Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. I don’t think I’ve ever heard actually?

            Did Lennon become bigger after his death? Was Elvis a midly successful rock star? What about Jackson? They are all dead, they are all loved. Because of what they did in their lifetimes.

          • David BR said on 15th February 2011, 10:09

            Nicely put Hare. Don’t get the Senna-became-a-legend-after-he-died stuff either, at all. An equivalent today would be someone like Messi, still young (23!) but considered the world’s best footballer already for some time.

          • joolsy (@joolsy) said on 15th February 2011, 12:12

            Thats the most concise argument i have heard on this debate and its the most correct.Senna is/was the fastest man in any car.

          • Coefficient said on 16th February 2011, 13:23

            Voted for by people who never raced with him and alos by people who never raced after his death. There’s always bias and yours is as blatant as any.

      • TommyB (@tommyb89) said on 14th February 2011, 19:55

        Really enjoyed the series Keith and a great idea.

        However, I really expected Button and Hamilton to be in the final, with this site being so British biased and all.

        I jest of course.

    • explosiva said on 14th February 2011, 19:00

      My thoughts exactly.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th February 2011, 20:59

      I suppose it can hardly be suprising, the best 4 will probalby be at the top or close for a majority of fans worldwide.

      I really like how close it was in from the quarter finals onward, that was a bit of a suprise.
      A deserved conquear for Senna, went for the maximum, just as in real life!

  3. Eggry (@eggry) said on 14th February 2011, 17:18

    as I expected. I believe no one could beat Senna in vote like this. It makes the vote less interesting but I was fun at some point(Clark vs Schumi or Fangio vs Prost)

  4. Dan Thorn (@dan-thorn) said on 14th February 2011, 17:19

    A deserving winner. Not that I agree with the result, but deserving none the less.

  5. Icemangrins said on 14th February 2011, 17:21

    Congratulations Ayrton…

    Michael will still remain the greatest F1 driver of all time… atleast in our hearts !

  6. SennaNmbr1 (@sennanmbr1) said on 14th February 2011, 17:21

    I should think so :)

  7. Legardism said on 14th February 2011, 17:26

    It will be interesting to see what the result would be in say another 10, 20 50 years – whether the senna-less generations to come will have the same view; since I’ve found it’s always harder to have the same attachment to drivers of another era, no matter what their achievements.

    • Andy W said on 14th February 2011, 19:08

      All I suspect that will happen is that new names will be added to the list of Senna, Schumacher and Fangio as the greatest of all times…. I very much doubt any of those three will loose their places at the heart of F1. That said in 50years maybe only Schumacher will remain in the top 3 simply because when it comes down to it records count and 7 times world champion… is one that I suspect only one or two people might ever come close to rivalling… and if he clinches an 8th and more…. (huge IF)

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th February 2011, 21:04

        If Vettel or Hamilton will have some 3 WDCs to their name by then, they will very likely be right at the top.
        Then again, maybe by that time Lewis will be driving a Red Bull at the back of the field and Vettel will be enjoying some Ferrari GT1 racing as Kobayashi, Kubica, Hulk, Esteban, or whoever comes next fills their places.

        • Andy W said on 16th February 2011, 10:22

          I have felt for a long time that Hamilton has the ability to become one of the true greats of the sport, from his début he has shown he is a great racer.

          Vettel on the other hand has only proved he is extremely quick, which is a vital skill for a F1 driver but he still has a long way to go to prove himself to me as a racer able to deal with overtaking and defending his position.

    • skodarap (@skodarap) said on 14th February 2011, 19:10

      Agreed. I reckon it will be the same as it is now with Clark.

  8. Hellas said on 14th February 2011, 17:27

    simply the best!!!

  9. David BR said on 14th February 2011, 17:29

    Great Keith, just disagree with this:

    Aside from his exceptional record – particularly his astonishing tally of pole positions – a recurring point in the discussions about Senna was the darker side of his talent. Particularly the crash with Alain Prost at Suzuka in 1990 that sealed his second title. That cynical and dangerous act cannot be glossed over.

    First Prost had done the same to win the year, taking out Senna (on pole). Second he never hid or denied what he was up to. I’m probably going to get hammered for saying it, but there’s something actually noble for me in the way he took revenge on Prost and won that title. I’d have been happy for Hill to have done the same on Schumacher (another Prost) for example. I say this only as I think it’s unfair to talk of Senna’s ‘dark’ side on the basis of that race. Otherwise he was same as many other top drivers: occasionally ruthless on track, but also capable of real compassion and you (or I) always felt any excess came from some inner demon driving him to test his own limits, not just beat his rivals. That was a long distance second. It’s only when those priorities are reversed that cynical manipulation can really come in, depending on the driver.

    • John H said on 14th February 2011, 17:36

      Difference was that he put Prost’s life in danger because of someone else (Balestre), so I’m with Keith on this one. But, as I mention below at least he was honest about what he did and why. He had his beliefs and stuck to them.

    • Revenge is never noble. Also, there is a difference between Prost not getting out of Senna’s way (1989) and Senna driving at full speed into Prost (1990). In the first instance, Senna didn’t need to try the move there and then – he could have waited and slipstreamed past him on the straight, for example. What I’m saying is he could have avoided the accident and the blame for the crash is (IMO) 50/50. In the 1990 instance, the crash was 100% down to Senna and there was nothing Prost could do about it.

      • Feynman said on 14th February 2011, 17:58

        Careful now … blasphemy, that’s the beatified Saint Ayrton of Senna, haven’t you been issued with your fully sanctioned copy of the airbrushed mythology?

        There you will clearly read that smashing into a competitor at full racing speed was not a shameful exercise in proto-Schumacherism, but was instead one of his blessed earthly miracles.

      • David BR said on 14th February 2011, 18:04

        here was nothing Prost could do about it

        which is why it was perfect.

        • which is why Senna should have been disqualified from that years championship and had his licence reviewed by the FIA, and should never be regarded as the greatest of all time.

        • David-A (@david-a) said on 14th February 2011, 18:14

          And indeed, it wasn’t noble, by any stretch.

          • David BR said on 14th February 2011, 18:35

            Maybe it’s a cultural thing. I can remember Schumacher taking out Hill and finding it absurd that Hill ‘accepted’ the ridiculous explanation instead of reacting angrily. And afterwards? Was it really good for Hill to have responded that way? The question matters or mattered to him, not me or us. And in fact I’ve read Brazilians praising the ‘English gentleman’ response to the incident. Maybe you see that as the more noble response. I don’t – accepting the lies and deceit of others when you’ve lost something you value enormously (as Hill had) is somehow a little bit life-destroying, even if it’s safer and easier for everyone else because you don’t make any fuss.

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 14th February 2011, 19:18

            I guess it shows that Senna was far more passionate than someone like Hill, which is a good trait to see in any culture. Obviously though, in this case it went a bit too far and lead to a dangerous and pre-meditated event.

            Hilariously for Hill, even if he did want to win a title against Schumacher in 1995 in the manner Schu won in ’94, he couldn’t because he was outclassed!

          • David BR said on 14th February 2011, 20:42

            Well can’t disagree that Hill was outclassed.
            Senna’s move on Prost was more forewarned than pre-meditated, I think. There’s a Brazilian expression: cutucar a onça com vara curta. Prodding the jaguar with a short stick. Senna obviously felt out-maneouvred politically (with FIA) by Prost and felt the only place he could get the justice he felt he deserved – maybe a better word than revenge = was by himself alone on track.

    • Markus said on 14th February 2011, 18:14

      Couldn’t have said it better.
      Watching Senna jump from his car, avoid an oncoming car to run back and check on another driver who’s had a huge accident is how I remember Ayrton. Not for his taking out Prost.

      • David-A (@david-a) said on 14th February 2011, 18:17

        That’s nice, but both still happened, and others (not me some of the time) will remember Japan 1990.

        • Andy W said on 14th February 2011, 19:13

          Agreed, and Senna was known in the sport as being a particularly HARD racer, not saying that as a bad thing because it’s not… but it is part of him and the closer he races to the line the closer he is coming to crossing it… and he did cross it on occasion in my opinion.

          Still as a fan watching him race….. when he was on form and racing hard it was electric.

        • Patrickl (@patrickl) said on 14th February 2011, 23:16

          It’s cute how the people who keep harping about Japan 1990 have no problem being a fan Schumacher with a scandal or two every season.

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 15th February 2011, 0:43

            I am not suggesting it isn’t ok to be a Senna fan.

            I don’t pretend as if Schumacher isn’t tainted.

            So you got it wrong.

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 15th February 2011, 1:01

            And to be honest, I think the mudlinging between fans probably should stop.

            Senna and Schumacher are legends, along with Prost. Let’s leave it at that.

  10. John H said on 14th February 2011, 17:32

    The guy put everything on the line and them some. He was totally F1 – both on and off the track. I think it’s a great result. He didn’t cheat, and if it ever seemed like he did (Japan) it was for reasons he truly believed in and was honest about (unlike Schumi).

    Of course I wasn’t alive when Fangio and Clark were about, but there’s nothing I can do about that!

  11. But nor can we ignore that two of the other most highly-rated champions – Schumacher and Prost – won titles in similar circumstances

    I thought Schumacher lost it! (1997)

  12. WOW! SENNA wins a GOAT poll. SENNA! Who’d ever have thought it?

    Honestly though, I would have put Fangio and Prost ahead of him. Senna and Schumacher will never be the greatest for me because of their disregard for safety and racing fairness on track.

    • Icemangrins said on 14th February 2011, 17:46

      Did you just call this a goat poll. come on.. actually I thought this poll was fun and doesn’t (need not) reflect who is and was the greatest. Keith did a great job in setting this up.

      • Sorry, I didn’t mean to cause offence. Yes it was good fun and extremely interesting, and yes he did do a great job in making it. It’s just more than a little bit frustrating that these polls always end up with the same result, which I happen to disagree with.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th February 2011, 21:10

        Fully agree, it was thorough fun and a great way to enjoy the off season.
        Only regret is, we can hardly repeat it any time soon, so what to do next year in the off season :-(

        Thanks all posters as well for bringing in new angles, stats, quotes, pictures, videos and opinions.

        • Best way to repeat it is remove Senna, Schumacher and Fangio from the pole. Then restate the pole as “we know these three as legends, but who is the greatest legend after them”. Cause honestly I wouldnt mind seeing the result.

    • tflb
      prost ahead of senna? based on what??? certainly not speed or overtaking skills, or rain drive skills or street track skills…i guess perhaps based on his good politics skills though, getting arnoux and mansell booted out of the teams :))
      senna he couldnt, simply because senna was so much better and for mclaren to get rid of senna would be a total no-brainer , so mr.prost went on to get booted by ferrari :)

      • I wouldn’t say Prost was faster, but qualifying speed is rarely everything in motorsport. Prost was usually at least as fast in races and had much better tactical sense than Senna. And I would say Prost was an equal in terms of overtaking – it’s just Senna’s were more spectacular because he always risked a crash, which is one of the reasons I don’t put him at number 1.

        • hm, faster means faster, doesnt it.

          that’s a big misconception about prost – being tactical. he was just slower and if cars in front of him dropped out, he came and took it. i mean in those 2 years with senna he was quicker only in france, no tactics ever helped him much.

          have read thru early senna interviews, that guy was driving mad when he didnt need to

          i;m not going into youtube session with you to show how desperately useless prost was when he had to overtake :)

          anyway, there were no drives from prost, like there were from senna, just take his monaco 84…do you need more?? :)

          it’s a bit odd to say “always” risked a crash, innit :)

          • 1. Faster does not always mean better.
            2. Yes, sometimes cars in front of Prost dropped out, but it was the same for everyone and he had his fair share of bad luck.
            3. Youtube will show that, as I said, Prost was just as good an overtaker as Senna, but their way of doing it was different.
            4. South Africa 1982 was as good a drive by Prost as any of Senna’s, and there were many more which I won’t list here.
            5. I find it difficult to take a comment ending in ‘innit’ seriously.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 14th February 2011, 18:00

      GOAT

      Greatest of all time?

  13. it’s pointless to do polls to have the obvious outcome…anyone who saw senna drive doesnt have to be genious to know he was by far the best.

    and in this case, when against schumi, in 93 he ate him fair and square. schumi is good, but not as good as senna

    • anTONIo said on 14th February 2011, 19:00

      Noteworthy is the fact that Ron Dennis fought to get the latest version of Ford engine ( used by Benetton ) and never got it. In spite of that, Ayrton took five victories compared to Michael’s one…
      Williams-Renault was in another league but I’ll always remember how Ayrton closed Alain on straights. Driving 200 mph and blocking the guy behind you. Awesome!

    • John H said on 14th February 2011, 22:18

      obvious outcome

      Look at the results. The last rounds were actually quite close run things.

  14. A fair win!
    Many quote the huge number of championships which Michael won, but let’s not forget he rarely had who to challenge him in his team! Just imagine Ferrari signing Villeneuve or Alonso (and Hakkinen provided he stops laughing at offers of red cars) and one can imagine at least a couple of wdcs less. Great drivers, fair result!

    • David-A (@david-a) said on 14th February 2011, 18:05

      You can’t judge someone on what didn’t happen.

      Schumacher, in those seven years, took his teammate and beat them. He took on rivals in good machinery and beat them. Full stop.

      • Steve J said on 14th February 2011, 18:27

        But he didn’t did he. You cant beat someone who isn’t allowed to compete against you. That is the biggest question mark over Schumi. The fact he was scared to race his own team mate, That is until last year. The fact is Schumi won most of his titles in the weakest F1 championships ever

        • David-A (@david-a) said on 14th February 2011, 19:06

          You have to consider that Schumacher did have to race drivers in other cars, sometimes even faster than his. If Barrichello was this guy who was denied multiple WDCs by Schumacher, he wouldn’t have watched another teammate beat him in 2009. Irvine, Herbert and Brundle (especially Herbert) were simply destroyed.

          Calling Schumacher’s titles “the weakest” certainly isn’t fact. It’s just insulting drivers like Villeneuve, Raikkonen, Button, Hakkinen, Alonso, Montoya and Coulthard. At the end of the day, you can only beat what is put in front of you. If Schumacher wins 9, 11 or 13 races in a season or finishes on the podium in every single race, then that is just at least as indicative of his quality as it is of the opposition supposedly being weak.

          • Olivier said on 14th February 2011, 20:05

            When Johnny Herbert proved to be competitive against Schumacher at Benetton, he was quickly denied information such as telemetry from Schumacher’s side of the team. Rubens Barrichello described his victories at Ferrari as not just against the field but also against the team. I know how great Schumacher is, what I don’t get is why would he need those dirty tactics to “destroy” their team-mates.

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 14th February 2011, 22:37

            When Johnny Herbert proved to be competitive against Schumacher at Benetton, he was quickly denied information such as telemetry from Schumacher’s side of the team.

            I heard about the telemetry stuff, but having checked, he didn’t out-qualify or finish ahead of Schumacher in the first half of the season to trigger this (except Silverstone when Schumacher was leading and then taken out). This dampens the competitiveness argument.

          • Kenny (@kenny) said on 15th February 2011, 9:30

            Herbert said this happened during pre season testing, so the damage was done before the season started (if it actually happened).

          • Olivier said on 15th February 2011, 18:41

            and Hernerth was given no oppotunity to test. All the testing was done by Schumacher. I think it was only for the British GP that he could test (on the small circuit off course)

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th February 2011, 21:20

      Actually IMHO that statistic and the opinion you field of Schumi’s wins not being comparable has been answered and put aside in the discussions I saw the last weeks.

      What this poll round mattered most for me, was how I will now never ever think the less of a champoin just because their only championship(s) have been won only because of … (fill in the blank).

      Sure, the guys quarter finals were superb, but a lot of the “lesser” champions were almost as good. Just think about that famous non-WDC all time great Sir Moss.

      Almost all Champions had wins they “should/would/could” have won if not for a wide range of reasons. And all had factors making it easier on them (a certaion competitor not being fit/having a slow/unreliable car or having a great car themselves, teammates giving up places for them or whatever) at part of their careers.

  15. GeorgeTuk (@georgetuk) said on 14th February 2011, 17:43

    This is biased, this website is British.

    Only joking but not surprised at result, pure class with an intense passion to win at any cost.

1 2 3 5

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.