Does how you win matter more now than it did while Senna and Prost were racing?

[Yoong Montoya]

I think so. It seems that since Senna and Prost retired, how you win seems to have become more important to the viewing public. As Michael Schumacher himself says "In the past it was okay to do things that you can't get away with now".

[krt917]

Umm, that's a bit of a strange quote from Michael. Is he referring to track ethics? If so, then I fear he may be dilussional! Senna set the trend for poor track ethics, but now many of the drivers (though not all) seem to be able to get away with some appalling moves - Michael especially!

Going back even further, of course, the drivers couldn't get away with what they do now because the cars and tracks were far more dangerous - the risks were higher.

[Blue-eyed Devil]

I don't know about that. If he refers to teamorders, than I guess he is right. As far as I know, it happened more than once that some championship contender had a problem with his car, so his teammate got out and let him have his. Today, teamorder have to be 'covered up', especially due to the FIA banning them. If Ferrari wants to have Michael and Rubens switch positions, they have to mess up one of Rubens' pit stops instead of doing it the straight way.

[R]

Originally posted by krt917
Senna set the trend for poor track ethics

Are you sure it wasn't triggered by Balestre? The blatant favouritism for Prost showcased by the FIA back then, set the scene for what happened both in 1989 and in 1990.

Therefore, the controversial situations which TGF has been involved in, can't be compared to Senna v Prost at all, IMO.

[Damon]

Agreed R, Senna faught tough but fair with everyone. Except Prost on just one occasion. 1990 only happened as a result of 89 and is in no way comparable to what Schu did on two seperate occasions.

[jetsetter]

Originally posted by R
Are you sure it wasn't triggered by Balestre? The blatant favouritism for Prost showcased by the FIA back then, set the scene for what happened both in 1989 and in 1990.

Therefore, the controversial situations which TGF has been involved in, can't be compared to Senna v Prost at all, IMO.

Senna's bad sportsmanship can't be put down to any favouritism shown to Prost, remember the first corner of Suzuka. On Schumacher's quote i'm not really sure where he's coming from but all it looks like to me is he's trying to make excuses for his poor on track ethics.

[Damon]

I think it can, Senna's attitude (and quite justifiably in my opinion) was that Prost had won the title in 89 by taking him out so why shouldn't he be allowed to do the same. It was a direct up yours to Balestre and his blantent favouritism for Prost. Now that doesn't make it right, but Senna wasn't doing it because it was the only way he could win, it was about the politics.

[ASCII Man]

Yep, the ending of the 1989 season was an absolute farce, even more a farce than Adelaide '94, Jerez '97, Austria 2001 & 2002 and the 1994/95 Benetton team combined.

[krt917]

Yes, from that point of view Blue, his comments make more sense!

[corkholio]

I don't know how "sportsmanlike" it was for Senna to veto Derek Warwick at Lotus in favor of Johnny "deer staring at headlights" Dumfries.

[Blue-eyed Devil]

He did that? Why? *curious*

[krt917]

Originally posted by Damon
Agreed R, Senna faught tough but fair with everyone. Except Prost on just one occasion. 1990 only happened as a result of 89 and is in no way comparable to what Schu did on two seperate occasions.

What are you talking about!?? The reason Prost made his move in '89 was because Senna had been bullying him on the track for several seasons and he'd had enough. It was more of 'you're not doing that again' approach than Senna's '90 trick (which was much more dangerous) of deliberaltey taking Prost off. Whatever Balestre did, it doesn't excuse that.

Just off the top of my head, here are a few of Senna's other dubious moments:
- 1988 Estoril - Tried to force Prost into the wall as Alain came passed. Doesn't look THAT bad now, but that is because the FIA has failed to stamp out this sort of thing, which Senna helped start.
- 1990 Hungary - Could't overtake Nannini's (I think) Benetton, so just nerfed him off.
- 1990 Brazil - Always praised for being able to pass backmarkers effectively, Ayrton had quite a few moments, the one that lost him the Brazilian GP being my personal favourite.
- There were also a couple of moments with Alain, such as Hockenheim '91 and Silverstone '93, where Senna's moves were not as bad as those above, but still showed a certain lack of....knowing where the line was.

Senna was a great, but his ethics were among the worst in GP history.

[ASCII Man]

Originally posted by corkholio
I don't know how "sportsmanlike" it was for Senna to veto Derek Warwick at Lotus in favor of Johnny "deer staring at headlights" Dumfries.

Where's the proof?
i want solid evidence, not rumours!

[krt917]

Originally posted by Blue-eyed Devil
He did that? Why? *curious*

Because:
a) Derek was quicker than Dumfries;
b) He thought that Lotus could only produce one decent car (might have been right there!) and he wanted to be sure he had the right one.

[Blue-eyed Devil]

Ah. Interesting. Thanks for explaining.

However, I wouldn't necessarily say that's un-"sportsmanlike". No one likes a serious rival as a teammate after all.

[Damon]

Estoril '88 - Schu did worse to his own brother.

Hockenheim '91 Prost outbraked himself while trying to pass Senna on the outside into the first chicane. What exactly did Senna do wrong?

Brazil '90 was an error they all make them, but he was the master of cutting through the traffic in the era before the pathetic blue flag rule, dragging this one out smacks of a lack of valid examples.

[corkholio]

Originally posted by Damon
Estoril '88 - Schu did worse to his own brother.

What Schumacher did to his brother doesn't make Senna's move any more "sportsmanlike" than it was 15 years ago.

[krt917]

Exactly corkholio. In fact, it backs up my point that that sort of thing has become more acceptable, partly due to the FIAs reluctance to deal with his antics (though he WAS hard-done-by after Suzuka in '89).

[Lee Janotta]

I'd call him a liar, but I know the mods won't let me!

But good lord, the truth is the complete opposite! In Senna and Prost's day, many of the things he gets away with all the time would have resulted in someone's death!!

As for Senna's antics with Prost, Prost absolutely gave as good as he got. Monaco '84, Suzuka '89, trying to alienate Senna within the McLaren team in '88... And only in the years they were teammates did Senna ever have as good a car as Prost. And for most of '88, that's debatable.

[krt917]

Originally posted by Damon
Brazil '90 was an error they all make them, but he was the master of cutting through the traffic in the era before the pathetic blue flag rule, dragging this one out smacks of a lack of valid examples.

I was merely trying to use that as an EXAMPLE of his approach. Another was the infamous '88 Monza incident with Schlesser. Everyone blames Schlesser, but he had gone wide, virtually off the road to get out of the way and still Senna chopped across the apex. Where was the Williams supposed to go?

As for being able to cut through traffic. Nige didn't seem to lose too much time to Ayrton in those sorts of situations AND he didn't have as many near misses (and actual moments) as Ayrton.

Don't get me wrong, Senna would be on my list of greats, but you can't escape the fact that he brought driving ethics to a new low. He may have been influenced by Balestre's actions, by his own personal religion or by his will to win, but the fact remains that he took things too far, especially against Prost. I'm not saying Schuey is any better, but Ayrton set the precedent.

[Mattracer]

Originally posted by Damon
Prost had won the title in 89 by taking him out so why shouldn't he be allowed to do the same.

Pay-backs are double!

Senna/Prost was a totally different world to the one we currently see. MS is a great but he is racing only a few inermmittent challengers by comparison with Senna and Prost who were going at it for half the '80s and into the early nineties. MS has not had a consistent rivalry with anyone for anything like that length of time and his questionable moves on other drivers should be seen in light of the absolute respect Senna and Prost had for one another, albeit through gritted teeth for much of the time.

The bottom line is MS races hard but his competition has not been as ferocious and the longevity is not there. Prost did some questionable things too but the two were absolute titans of the sport at the same time in its history.

[krt917]

Originally posted by Lee Janotta
And only in the years they were teammates did Senna ever have as good a car as Prost. And for most of '88, that's debatable.

Of course, some people just can't stand the idea of a non-European WDC...

Couldn't care less what nation the Champions from if he deserves his titles (which Senna's ability did). In my list of favoutires would be Fangio (the antithesis of Ayrton's approach), Brabham and Andretti.

As for the equal cars, I'd like to know where you get that idea from. I've read on more than one occassion (most recently in Motor Sport, I beleive) that whilst Prost may have been 'McLarens' man, Senna was 'Hondas' man and whereas McLaren always seemed to give equal cars, Honda apparently didn't always do likewise. I forget the date of the article (but will find it if necessary), but in it Prost claimed that, when he knew he was leaving he asked the Honda big-wigs about it and they virtually admitted it (at least in qualifying trim). Prost said that there were occassions when the qualifying gap seemd to big. He was prepared to accept that Ayrton was quicker in qualifying than him - of course he was - but a gap of almost two seconds on some occassions did push it sometimes.

I don't think Ayrton needed this help, but as there hae also been similar suggestions about Honda in the Mansell-Piquet days at Williams, it seems that he might hae got it.

[Lee Janotta]

Y'know, Matt, I think the respect Senna had for Prost as a driver was very important. Schumacher doesn't seem to have any sense of respect for his opponents. Senna punted Nanini because, in his mind, the Benneton driver didn't matter... Prost, Berger, Mansell, Piquet, and Alesi were the only drivers who had earned his respect in F1, and who he felt had any right to challenge him for position. Everyone else was just in the way. You can see it in that characteristic fist-shaking at the backmarkers.

Suzuka '90 _was_ payback, and Senna felt he was owed that WDC. If you ignore that one incident, Senna never made such a move on a legitimate rival. He'd shove off everyone not running in the points, but the drivers who he respected as his rivals, he'd always try and beat cleanly, if only to prove to them that he was the best.

Schumacher, on the other hand, has used take-out moves at least three times to win championships which he knew he couldn't win fairly: Macau '90, Adelaide '94, and Jerez '97. Those aren't Senna moves... Those are Prost moves. When you know you're about to be passed, you take out both cars to hold your advantage coming into the race.

Schumacher's just always struck me _far_ more as an insecure trophy-chaser, who _needs_ to win in order to feel secure in his abilities. Senna, on the other hand, could have gone years without a win, and still absolutely known in his heart that he was the best driver in the world.

Frankly, it sickens me the way Schumacher celebrates on the podium, because it proves that one win is as good to him as another... Whether he's flanked by a pair of Minardi drivers because everyone else DNF'd, or whether he drove the race of his life from the back of the grid to take the lead with a lap to go... It just doesn't make a difference to him. Senna and Prost were always downright dour when they won, because they both knew they could have done better, that there was some mistake they made during the race which left them vulnerable, even for an instant.

They fed off each other, neither would have been as great without the other. And that's especially true for Senna. Each wanted to prove to the other, once and for all, that he was the very best in the world. Hill never did that for Schumacher, neither did Jacques, neither did even Mika. He was a threat to Schumi for only 3 years... Hill for only two ('94 and '96), and Jacques only in '97. Schumi had absolute cakewalks in '95, '01 and '02. None of his rivals have had the staying power to fight him took and claw, race after race, for nearly a decade, the way Senna and Prost went at each other.

[Damon]

Well said again Lee. Schumachers celebration after every win last year was very odd to me. His punching the air and waving to the crowd as he got out of the car at Austria, just before he realised the crowd wasn't best pleased, was really quite funny. He seems to have no idea of the concept of a shallow victory, they're all stats in a book to him.

[krt917]

Originally posted by Lee Janotta
Senna punted Nanini because, in his mind, the Benneton driver didn't matter... Prost, Berger, Mansell, Piquet, and Alesi were the only drivers who had earned his respect in F1, and who he felt had any right to challenge him for position. Everyone else was just in the way. You can see it in that characteristic fist-shaking at the backmarkers.

Suzuka '90 _was_ payback, and Senna felt he was owed that WDC. If you ignore that one incident, Senna never made such a move on a legitimate rival. He'd shove off everyone not running in the points, but the drivers who he respected as his rivals, he'd always try and beat cleanly, if only to prove to them that he was the best.

So that makes it alright then, does it? The fact that a driver wasn't worthy in SENNA'S eyes means its OK to drive him off the track. I don't think so.

And anyway, some of his most aggressive driving was against Prost because he saw Prost as THE target. There may well hae been respect, but he didn't show it in a very professional way on the track, on occassion.

I agree that Michael has also done some dreadful things, though I don't think its primarily due to a lack of respect. I think that it's more to do with the fact that he (like Senna before him) has got away with various manoeuvres and so now sees them as part of the game, which they should not be.

Finally, I have to admit that the late-80s and early-90's were special times with so many great drivers, though I als reckon Ayrton would hae had some REAL trouble with Schuey (and vice versa of course) had it not been for Imola. But I guess that's another argument altogether!