Who was better - Senna or Prost?
Discussion
As something of an Alain Prost fan I've always thought he was actually a better driver than his more famous counterpart Ayrton Senna. He won more world championships (although of course unfortunately we will never know how many Senna would have won) and although he only had 33 poles compared to Senna's 65 he won 51 races where Senna only managed 41 wins. Senna was better at getting out the quick lap but Prost was a better racing driver. Agree or disagree?
One year I took a special interest in the Signes corner at Paul Ricard. There was a bump on the racing line that made the cars jump at over 200mph. Piquet and Senna were about the same with a small flick of the wrist after hitting the bump getting the car straight again. Mansell was much more clumsy, the car would go far more sideways before he caught it. With Prost the car didn't need straightening because he compensated as he hit the bump. This was the same lap after lap.
Another Prost fact is that on the same circuit at the same lap time he always used less fuel, less tyres and less brakes than any of his team-mates. He was not called the Professor without reason.
Another Prost fact is that on the same circuit at the same lap time he always used less fuel, less tyres and less brakes than any of his team-mates. He was not called the Professor without reason.
Edited by loneranger on Friday 18th May 16:06
magic torch said:
Disagree.
Prost was truly great. but feel Senna was a level above.
Prost was truly great. but feel Senna was a level above.
FWIW Jim Clark was another level up above these two. They would not have got anywhere near him in any race car. He truly was the greatest driver of the modern era.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Clar
And a great video with some good in car footage www.youtube.com/watch?v=00lKVg-TJr4&NR=1
Edited by loneranger on Friday 18th May 15:35
Edited by loneranger on Friday 18th May 15:53
loneranger said:
magic torch said:
Disagree.
Prost was truly great. but feel Senna was a level above.
Prost was truly great. but feel Senna was a level above.
FWIW Jim Clark was another level up above these two. They would not have got anywhere near him in any race car. He truly was the greatest driver of the modern era.
My Dad would probably say the same about Clark. Others would say Nuvolari or Fangio.
I loved watching Prost v Senna, shame Senna v Schumacher ended prematurely.
this is probably the same as the villeneuve discussion a few weeks ago. those who would rate senna higher than prost are more likely to rate villeneuve higher than those who would rate prost higher than senna. its all about the visable passion that senna showed rather than races won/pole positions he gained. i would rate them equal, nothing like sitting on the fence, just that they had different driving styles and different mentalities. prost would be far more likely to nurse a sick car to a lowly finish whilst senna would rag it till the car expired.
prost though, lost a little merit for me with the whole "Prost F1 team" debacle
prost though, lost a little merit for me with the whole "Prost F1 team" debacle
magic torch said:
Disagree.
Prost was truly great. but feel Senna was a level above.
Prost was truly great. but feel Senna was a level above.
Agreed, Donnington Park 1993 should answer the question really, in an inferior car Senna ahnihilated Prost and the rest of the field
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFu_-_d1IKE
Edited by freedman on Friday 18th May 16:20
freedman said:
magic torch said:
Disagree.
Prost was truly great. but feel Senna was a level above.
Prost was truly great. but feel Senna was a level above.
Agreed, Donnington Park 1993 should answer the question really, in an inferior car Senna ahnihilated Prost and the rest of the field
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFu_-_d1IKE
No, if you're going to use an example of Senna being great then you should really choose Estoril '85 in the Lotus.
Donington '93, as Senna himself said, was an example of how good McLaren's gizmos were in slimy conditions. He also showed good local knowledge on the first lap by using the 'wet' line.
On balance, my vote goes with Prost because he didn't crack under pressure (apart from that daft block at Suzuka in '89).
ahonen said:
freedman said:
magic torch said:
Disagree.
Prost was truly great. but feel Senna was a level above.
Prost was truly great. but feel Senna was a level above.
Agreed, Donnington Park 1993 should answer the question really, in an inferior car Senna ahnihilated Prost and the rest of the field
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFu_-_d1IKE
No, if you're going to use an example of Senna being great then you should really choose Estoril '85 in the Lotus.
Donington '93, as Senna himself said, was an example of how good McLaren's gizmos were in slimy conditions. He also showed good local knowledge on the first lap by using the 'wet' line.
On balance, my vote goes with Prost because he didn't crack under pressure (apart from that daft block at Suzuka in '89).
When do you consider Senna cracked under pressure?
Prost was my favourite driver of all time.
I do believe he is second in the fastest lap stakes only to Schumacher.
Schumacher, Michael 76
2 Prost, Alain 41
3 Mansell, Nigel 30
4 Clark, Jim 28
5 Häkkinen, Mika 25
6 Lauda, Niki 24
7 Fangio, Juan Manuel 23
= Piquet, Nelson 23
9 Berger, Gerhard 21
10 Räikkönen, Kimi 20
11 Hill, Damon 19
= Moss, Stirling 19
= Senna, Ayrton 19
14 Coulthard, David
I do believe he is second in the fastest lap stakes only to Schumacher.
Schumacher, Michael 76
2 Prost, Alain 41
3 Mansell, Nigel 30
4 Clark, Jim 28
5 Häkkinen, Mika 25
6 Lauda, Niki 24
7 Fangio, Juan Manuel 23
= Piquet, Nelson 23
9 Berger, Gerhard 21
10 Räikkönen, Kimi 20
11 Hill, Damon 19
= Moss, Stirling 19
= Senna, Ayrton 19
14 Coulthard, David
excupra said:
As something of an Alain Prost fan I've always thought he was actually a better driver than his more famous counterpart Ayrton Senna. He won more world championships (although of course unfortunately we will never know how many Senna would have won) and although he only had 33 poles compared to Senna's 65 he won 51 races where Senna only managed 41 wins. Senna was better at getting out the quick lap but Prost was a better racing driver. Agree or disagree?
It's a bit like comparing a Steve Davis, Stephen Hendry or John Higgins to a Ronnie O'Sullivan or Alex Higgins... consistent performer v naturally talented individual!
Whilst I admire the consistent performers and ultimately they tend to be more successful, it's the naturally talented individuals that the crowds come to see.
For the benefit of Freedman, yes that does include Ronnie Peterson!!
I think people often get confused between great and enchanting. Prost, Senna, Clark, Schumacher, Stewart, etc are all great but somehow it's Senna, Clark, Villenueve that people call great, that are endlessly disscused, that capture the imagination. Sure they were great and it's possible that they were, say, three of the top five ever but it's because they were killed in their prime. We never saw them decline we never saw them slow down or give up. We saw them race, we saw them die, nothing else.
A bit like the girl you never kissed perhaps?
A bit like the girl you never kissed perhaps?
fozzi said:
excupra said:
As something of an Alain Prost fan I've always thought he was actually a better driver than his more famous counterpart Ayrton Senna. He won more world championships (although of course unfortunately we will never know how many Senna would have won) and although he only had 33 poles compared to Senna's 65 he won 51 races where Senna only managed 41 wins. Senna was better at getting out the quick lap but Prost was a better racing driver. Agree or disagree?
It's a bit like comparing a Steve Davis, Stephen Hendry or John Higgins to a Ronnie O'Sullivan or Alex Higgins... consistent performer v naturally talented individual!
Whilst I admire the consistent performers and ultimately they tend to be more successful, it's the naturally talented individuals that the crowds come to see.
For the benefit of Freedman, yes that does include Ronnie Peterson!!
Thank you
ahonen said:
freedman said:
When do you consider Senna cracked under pressure?
Suzuka '90, Monaco '88, Brazil '93. Only three there, I admit, but they're ones that instantly spring to mind (though Monaco was really just a silly mistake after Prost started setting some quick times).
Monaco was just a mistake as you say, he was so far ahead Prost would have caught him
Suzuka was revenge for the previous years injustice, I dont think he cracked I think he made achoice
Brazil 93, he won
I think if you go back Prost was as guilty of cracking and did 'give up' nore than once
Whilst overall I would just about give the nod to Senna, its worth remembering that in those 2 years they were together at mcLaren, Prost scored more points both years and would have been champion both times under the current regs, and I believe under the regs of most years. I also beleive that Prost didn't have to dig into himself as much as Senna did, nor did he need religion etc, and that it all came a bit more naturally to him. But Senna learnt and raised and raised his game.
They were both on a higher level than anyone else anywhere near the time. I wouldn't put anyone on a higher level, but there are a number of drivers now who occupy the very top strata. Having said that, I reckon Clark was the most naturally talented driver of all time.
But how would a Clark face the relentless, no holds-barred competitiveness of a Senna or a Schumacher? Of course we'll never know, but I do wonder.
They were both on a higher level than anyone else anywhere near the time. I wouldn't put anyone on a higher level, but there are a number of drivers now who occupy the very top strata. Having said that, I reckon Clark was the most naturally talented driver of all time.
But how would a Clark face the relentless, no holds-barred competitiveness of a Senna or a Schumacher? Of course we'll never know, but I do wonder.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff