Fangio vs Senna vs Schumacher

  • Thread starter Thread starter 88deathguy
  • 77 comments
  • 7,222 views
You can't really compare them, totally different time periods.
Also, what about Clark?


Fangio didn't have to deal with the cornering forces of the new cars, but he raced when the cars and tracks were deathtraps.

Senna was very good, but Micheal took a garbage team and turned it into Ferrari's biggest string of championships.
 
Also, some would argue if Vettel gets any inclusion. I never saw Fangio and saw little of Senna so I can't really give any comparison and it wouldn't be fair to say who is better if each was part of a different era/car type.
 
In what, football? Schumacher was probably best at that, his fitness would shine through on the pitch.

In terms of driving? You can't compare Fangio to Senna or Schumacher. Completely different cars/tires and rules/competition. It's hardly the same sport. Schumacher vs Senna? We will never know. They never raced in the same car and they didn't have any common teammates. There was only a short period when Schumacher was entering his prime and was fighting Senna in somewhat equal machinery but that was tragically short lived. Can't do anything more than guess or pick a favourite.
 
Prost, anyone?

No one likes Prost after the Senna movie. Which is a shame because he was also an amazing driver.

Personally I would put Prost as equal to Senna. Obviously there are many different factors but overall.

Can't remember if the Senna movie painted Prost in a bad light as it's a long time since I saw it.
 
Personally I would put Prost as equal to Senna. Obviously there are many different factors but overall.

Can't remember if the Senna movie painted Prost in a bad light as it's a long time since I saw it.

That's more or less my opinion as well. Wildly different styles, but both so successful that it would be hard to say that one was definitively better.

It's more that Senna is the hero of the movie, and the most exciting part of Senna's career was when he was going head to head with Prost. I wouldn't say that Prost plays the villian, because the movie has no such thing, but he's definitely the contrast to the hero. I think the movie does a good job of being as fair as it can given that it's trying to celebrate Senna.
 
Out of the three mentioned in the title, first comes Fangio, then Schumi, then Senna.

Needless to say, I can't stand the 3-time champ (who should only be 2-time) for various reasons, but especially dirty driving which he was never penalized for. The only people who are even worse are the ones who think they're cool by stuffing his quotes (which really are just excuses to drive cheap) into their signatures.
 
Senna left it up to the other driver to decide if the accident would happen or not, Schumacher went a step further than this on at least two occasions.
 
Needless to say, I can't stand the 3-time champ (who should only be 2-time) for various reasons, but especially dirty driving which he was never penalized for. The only people who are even worse are the ones who think they're cool by stuffing his quotes (which really are just excuses to drive cheap) into their signatures.

With all due respect to him considering his current condition, but Schumacher did no better in this respect. Though he was penalised for a couple of his at least.
 
Nah, you're not thinking hard enough.
f1-hungary-95.jpg
 
I've never seen Fangio in a full race, and I don't think I'd understand the old era anyway.

From the 80s onwards:
1. Schumacher
2. Prost
3. Senna
 
Tazio_Nuvolari_6.jpg


Tazio Nuvolari was a symbol of relentless determination. It did not matter if his legs were broken, his ribs were broken, or if he was a hundred horsepower down, he would win, or almost kill himself trying. No matter the odds.



It is often said Fangio largely found his success because of the teams he drove for, but to look at it another way, those teams signed him because they knew he was the best. Fangio was known for the care he gave to his machinery, his gentlemanly persona and his outright speed. He had massive respect from his peers.



Some say that Clark would have won far more championships if not for notorious Lotus unreliability. Had Clark been around for the 1968 season, it would be hard to imagine Graham Hill winning that year with Clark as a teammate. He was regarded as the best of his time by his contemporaries. Don't let the fact he "only" had 2 world championships fool you.



So there you have it. Nuvolari. Fangio. Clark. Senna. Schumacher. The giants of the sport, and to say that any one of them was better than the other 4 would perhaps be doing a great disservice. They were regarded as the best of their times, so from my point of view, they were all equally great.
 
But, if you versus them in their period cars... still wouldnt work. Fangio would have to stay of the carbs.
 
With all due respect to him considering his current condition, but Schumacher did no better in this respect. Though he was penalised for a couple of his at least.

Then again, Schumi never whined like a crybaby when he was going to be teamed up with an obviously fast driver, and didn't demand an immediate change as if he was some kind of a wonderkid.
 
Was Schuey ever in such a position, though? Not knowing all his team-mates, but off the top of my head, I never saw Irvine, Barrichelo or Massa posing much of a threat.

I mean, it's not like he got Lewis Hamilton as a team-mate on his first day at Ferrari... :D
 
I know it was the year Schumacher broke his leg, but Irvine was doing pretty good in 1999. To the level of Senna/Prost 1989? Of course not. Capable of winning the championship even with Micheal still racing? Eh... I'd say yes.




Damn straight he did at Suzuka 1990.
The one the year prior wasn't exactly the best judgment on Senna's part either.
 
Was Schuey ever in such a position, though? Not knowing all his team-mates, but off the top of my head, I never saw Irvine, Barrichelo or Massa posing much of a threat.

And even on the rare occasion that they did pose a threat, team orders made short work of that. Austria 2002?
 
never got to see Fangio drive but i respect what others have to say about him. I did watch the Senna and Schumacher eras and both were very talented drivers. For me Schumachers is the most technically talented driver i have ever seen race but racing like life is more than who is the most talented so Senna is number 1 for me because he combined that talent along with that passion to drive and win. Just watch old Senna qualifying runs tell me the F1 world responded the same when Schumacher hit the field for his fast lap? Michael raced in an era if the car was not 100% bring it in shut it down, Sanna raced in era you just adjust to what the car is doing even if you only have 1 gear so it’s never going to be a fair comparison and really these are subjective anyways.


Speedy recovery Michael, a true class act and one of the greatest in any era
 
It's more that Senna is the hero of the movie, and the most exciting part of Senna's career was when he was going head to head with Prost. I wouldn't say that Prost plays the villian, because the movie has no such thing, but he's definitely the contrast to the hero. I think the movie does a good job of being as fair as it can given that it's trying to celebrate Senna.

There is the extended edition of the movie available that does have a lot more of Prosts interviews and a lot more of others and doesn't paint Prost in a negative light, as the normal release does.

Back on topic, Clark, Hill and Ickx were a lot more versatile than a lot of their counter parts, and a lot more since
 
it is impossible to make this comparison.

but you can't ignore that senna was someone extra special, the laps he did sometimes...
 

Latest Posts

Back