I am stepping into a burning flame here, it is a no win situation, taking one side or the other in a Senna–Schumacher comparison will leave you with nowhere to go independent of your conclusion. The best I can do is to put forward the facts and express my own personal thoughts on the issue. That is precisely the intention of this piece. It is such a controversial piece, that I felt like I could only do justification by writing it in two parts (Rear View Mirror 1 and 2)
Two illustrious, incomparable careers completed with time (well…one of them, very unfortunately abruptly stopped), here is comparing and contrasting Ayrton Senna da Silva and Michael Schumacher by looking at them in the rear view mirror.
I definitely do not believe in inter-generational comparisons. Is Borg better than Nadal? Is Bradman better than Tendulkar? Is Jordan better than Bryant? As inviting as these questions are to the public, the conclusions more often than not mean little, if anything. Records reflect little to nothing, in an inter-generational comparison.
Each one of these is a futile question. The two athletes in question did not play under the same conditions, did not play the same opponents and do not even possess the same records. The solitary common theme among them is that they were the best in their respective eras.
On a purely technical basis, I believe the two athletes in question must have played each other at least once, to even, to enter the comparative question. Based on that very logic, Senna and Schumacher raced against each other 41 times…the very reason why this piece even came into existence, the very reason why this piece might potentially be marginally meaningful.
Let us break such a complex question into sub-categories, what are the most important ingredients that comprise a multiple world champion? You can come up with infinite answers to that question, but am going to consider ten which I think are most important: talent, mental psychology, ruthlessness, racing under pressure, car control, team-mate competition, wet racing, impact on the sport, outlook, and team loyalty.
Today's Must Reads
Make no mistake, both the athletes under question have more than required of each of these characteristics, so the only question is how they would fare against each other in an acid test comparison. The first five categories are discussed in Rear View Mirror 1. The sequel, Rear View Mirror 2, discusses the remaining.
Talent: The sheer ability to outrace the opponent using talent and nothing else. I am going to have to give the edge to Senna here. One has to take into consideration that Senna raced his entire career without any traction controls. Schumacher did just as well before and after traction controls were invented, but a difference ever so slight does exist in terms of overtaking everyone from the back of the grid and meticulously slicing through the field. I am not claiming Schumacher did not do it; I am just saying Senna did it better and more number of times. I think Schumacher has a plethora of talent, but in terms of thoroughbred sheer racing talent, Senna is just a shade better. Senna: Schumacher: 1-0
Mental Psychology: I think at the very core, Senna was emotionally driven and Schumacher was mentally driven. More so than anything else, this characteristic is very innate. South Americans wear their heart on the sleeves much more than Germans do (in general). It took a lot of convincing on Willi Weber's part to convince a cold calculating German, to switch to a car (Ferrari) that he almost lapped every race in 1995, driving a Benetton. Schumacher did not let emotions govern his driving; he would not have taken Prost off the first corner by running into him in final race in Suzuka 1990; he would have won the race instead, to make a statement. That's precisely why I choose Schumacher for this category, for being the cold-hearted pantomime bastard he is, Senna is cold, but Schumacher is just colder. Senna: Schumacher 1-1.
Ruthlessness: This is a dead heat; there is no separating the both of them, for they both are equally intrepid and devastatingly ruthless. The number of times Senna has weaved mercilessly when a driver behind has threatened to overtake him has been more than sufficiently documented. Schumacher is summed by Martin Brundle best, ‘Does not know the difference between, hard but fair, ruthless but foul,' Hill, Villeneuve and Barrichello will testify for the same. Senna: Schumacher 2-2.
Racing under Pressure: As seduced I am to call this a dead heat, the edge goes to Senna. The first thing that came into my mind was, Schumacher’s phoenix rise to P3, after being made to start from the back of the grid from pole, in the championship race in 1998 (The Ferrari mechanics forgot the dry ice … go figure that out in a championship race, yeah). He would not finish the race, but he would come back to P3, with some of he best over-taking you can ever witness on a track. His last race in Interlagos 2006 was very much the same. But for every one of these masterpieces, am also unfortunate to remember the botched ones: the uncomfortable 2003 championship win, with P8, and a couple of instances where he mistakenly ran into drivers (Sato) when the heat was on. That’s why Senna gets the nod; he never flinched in times of adversity, not even as much as Schumacher. Senna: Schumacher 3-2
Car Control: This one is contrary to the previous one, as much as am tempted to give Senna the edge, this is well and truly a dead heat. Senna’s ability to work the throttle in the middle of the corners is legendary; those were the days without traction control. But in "Driven to Extremes" (a biography of Schumacher), the author would claim that Schumacher is such an sensitivity analysis parameter during testing a car, his car control and timings are so painfully consistent that if the car goes faster suddenly, you can almost be sure to attribute another factor to it cause, it is definitely not driver error, or the lack of it. If Senna’s throttle work in corners is well-documented, so is Schumacher’s win stuck in fifth gear in Barcelona for two-thirds of the race. Both of them won a number of times in Monte Carlo, where car control takes presidence over any other factor. Dead heat for sure. Senna: Schumacher 4-3
Part 2 continued (Rear View Mirror Part 2: Senna Vs Schumacher)
comments (25) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
5 Star for this part mate ... Onwards to part 2 ... I am excited !
from about 1 month ago
thanks Mate - this took some time to write down
from about 1 month ago
positives and negatives ? would love to know your thoughts Ben
from about 1 month ago
Its a great article, I enjoyed it for sure, hence the long comment on Part II ... I thought I would comment it all as a whole ... Only negative is even though it would have been a long article you shouldnt have split it ... I just think that 1 article would have gained more focussed attention ! Now people are divided as to where to comment and score.
about 1 month ago
Intresting view, but i have to disagree about car control. During testing at the end of 1993, Senna was following Schumacher's exit from the curve, and the way how he use his throttle and he was impressed that even he started to practice that.
from about 1 month ago
sure - thats why i even mentioned that one - i agree, but i still think its close
from about 1 month ago
This video explains Schumacher's driving style during the corner.
A must watch..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1343899894037417366&q=schumacher+&ei=1tx-SJWMKoWI4QKMw7z5DQ
about 1 month ago
Dagni--Schumacher won one WC by crashing out Damon Hill. I don't need to explain the circumstances as I'm sure you know them. He tired the same thing with J. Villenueve, but failed, and he was penalized by having all his championship point taken away. Then there is Schumacher's fake collision with the wall at Monaco which ruined qualifying laps by other drivers, Alonso in particular. In view of these events you can't honestly award Mental Psychology to Schumacher on the basis of Senna's taking out Prost. It's true that Senna was intense and driven while Schumacher was cold and calculating. Which approach is prefereable as to the making of a winning driver, I leave to each individual to determine. For my part, I will take Senna.
from about 1 month ago
precisely Ted - there is no ONE good way of doing it, your last sentence summed it up, i think Michael's collisions were still driven by being cold and calculating and not emotional - that why I chose him - he does not get emotional much - your last sentence summed it up, for my part - I'll take Michael
from about 1 month ago
Sorry Teddy, but i didn't point at that. I have analized his collision with Damon million times and i only see one thing: the both drivers has make mistakes. The end.
I think i left coment here about car control and Senna's view on testing during winter 1993. When he saw Schumacher way of controling car at the exit of curves, he was impressed and started to practice the same way.
from about 1 month ago
dagni - am very interested now
can you explain that - what did he exactly do ... on controlling the car at the exit ?
from about 1 month ago
@Long, i think i can explain cause i own details, everything about what few drovers done and comparing the way of driving from winter test in 1993. Ayrton Senna (Williams-Renault), Michael Schumacher (Benetton-Ford), Martin Brundle (McLaren-Peugeot), Mark Blundell (Tyrrell-Yamaha), ja Jean Alesi (Ferrari)....but my explanation on english can be terrible.
about 1 month ago
Nice writing there Long John, but i cant help but feel bored on the whole subject. I've been a member of bleacher for three days and already seen these two compared a number of times. Yes they were both great drivers and yes they were extremely successful. And probably the best drivers ever, its like Tupac and Biggy, said to be the best rappers ever. We will be forever arguing over who is better.
But I wont be writing about these two drivers in a hurry, I would like to write about current and emerging talent, as that is where the future of the sport lies.
I enjoyed your style and your views are as valid as any ones plus i probably would agree with you on a few points.
Good article but I'm ready to move on and look to the future...
from about 1 month ago
Billy - i actually know what you are talking about -
i told myself, one last piece ... and may the topic rest in peae, this is that last piece from me mate
cheers - glad you liked it
about 1 month ago
Five Stars and definitely the pick of they day!
Though I liked both the articles, had to award the first one first!
First of all, i never saw Ayrton race live, but since i began watching F1, i have heard so much about him, that i have begun to feel that he must have been something out of this planet.
Like you said, it's impossible to compare people from diff generations like Bradman and Tendulkar and Nadal and Borg... but at times it is also difficult to compare two contemporaries; no bigger example than Lara and Tendulkar!
Now, like I mentioned, i never saw Senna behind the wheel, but I more or less agree with your assessment of Schumi.
Right from his ruthlessness when under the helmet, to his absolute "familia" approach towards his crew at Ferrari, he will definitely go down as probably one of the greatest sportsmen of either centuries in which he drove. Tough to see anyone among the current crop getting even close to him!
from about 1 month ago
thanks Anon -
mate yeah .... the bipolar personas inside and outside the garage: ruthlessness and familia - amazes me - could not agree more
glad you liked it mate
about 1 month ago
Sorry, well written but your points are not founded by the facts. Senna did not have better speed, in fact Prost had better speed than Senna.
Talent, Senna is not even close to Michael in race talent, in fact Prost was a better producer in race conditions, than Senna. The only place where Senna displayed more talent was in qualifying.
Racing under pressure, you have got to be kidding, there is not one fact to support such a wild claim.
Car control, once again no contest. If it was for one lap, Senna was better, over a race take the time to check lap times, Michael is the best ever and that means ever in consistent laps, he also has a much higher % of fastest laps, Senna's is so low it is not in the top 10.
The fact that your article ignores the fact that Prost delivered better than Senna, in every category except one is just plain wrong and suggests that you are as you sad just given an opinion, however an unsupported opinion under these circumstances, invalidates all of your claims!
Well written piece, shame that the body is not supported by any facts, just rhetoric.
about 1 month ago
But Paul - you say Prost has beter race craft than Senna, independent of what I think, how does that matter in an article comparing senna and schumacher ?
its an exogenous parameter isnt it ?
Car control, once again no contest. If it was for one lap, Senna was better, over a race take the time to check lap times, Michael is the best ever and that means ever in consistent laps, he also has a much higher % of fastest laps, Senna's is so low it is not in the top 10.
so - you agree, that Michael was better in one domain, and Senna in the other - that why I called it dead heat
I see and recognize all of your points regarding Prost - but I feel in this article, it is irrelevant mate
cheers - thank you for your response, appreciate it
about 1 month ago
Prost is not irrelevent, for if he is better than Senna, then why compare Senna to somebody who is better than Prost!
Car control, how can it be a dead heat, when one driver was far more consistent at a faster pace?
Will still say, I do like you your style of writing, just do not enjoy the ignoring of the facts.
Cheers!
from about 1 month ago
thanks Paul - looking forward to hearing more from you in the future -
about 1 month ago
Great article, and I pretty much agree. Its hard to say 'who is the best' when they are both damn good drivers although in my opinion I think Senna is the best. 'Schumacher or Senna ' is the big question in F1, maybe in time we will see 'Schumacher or Hamilton' comparisons in the furure.
from about 1 month ago
Adam - thanks for the responses .... yeah, but lewis and michael never raced against each other - thats a problem isnt it
any comparisons are at best - speculations
am sure lewis wud ve loved for Michael - to stay on for one more season
from about 1 month ago
Yes thats the point I was trying to make, but I didnt explain it very well.
about 1 month ago
Can't wait for part 2 - So far, I agree with the standings Right On.
from about 1 month ago
Cory - been some time since i ve spoken to you .... how are ya
glad you liked it - actually i uploaded 1 and 2 at the same time, you must be able to find part one right below 1
thanks for touching bases again -
is R.Island as hot an sticky as Chicago - ?in the summer
write a new comment