Considering he was basically robbed in 89 and 93?
Even in 92 he won more races than the 2nd and 3rd place drivers.
He is the greatest and before watching the film I thought of Schumacher ahead. bit no way.
Schumacher has had the better cars and has been a dirt-bag like Prost.
Those foolish enough to move from canada to america increase the average I.Q. of both countries
He was robbed, but we still can't count them.
If only he was French then he would have won many more WCs.
Jesus died for our sins. As he's already dead...sin away.
I agree with 1989 but I'm not so sure about 1993. If anyone was robbed in that year it was Damon Hill. He should have won in both Britain and Germany and could well have won in Spain and France. Incidentally all these races were won by Prost, that year's champion.
share[deleted]
Senna wasn't robbed of 1993 at all but he really proved he was the best that year. In all seriousness, beyond the fact that Prost won the championship it was an embarrassing year for him (watch the races before laughing). He took a year off in 1992 and it showed, leading to Hill really giving him a run the last half of the season, several embarrassing mistakes by Prost like losing it and crashing just after the safety car came out in Brazil, and stalling in the pits in Donington and Monaco (twice).
Plus with Senna challenging him as much as he did in that McLaren was quite astonishing, and it showed which driver had more commitment in South Africa, San Marino and Britain where Prost got by Senna and had the inside line but Senna didn't flinch and retook the position. Of course Prost got by eventually in these three occasions but it's almost a joke watching the footage of the speed difference between the two cars.
Anyway, 1989 on the other hand was one of Senna's best years (again, watch the races) and he absolutely dominated Prost and led every single Grand Prix at some point (every proper finish was a first place plus one second). When Prost and Senna both finished the same race that year (without mechanical problems), which happened seven times, every single time Senna finished ahead of Prost, six of those were victories. Senna also had seven wins that year to Prost's four. Keep in mind all four of Prost's victories occurred after a Senna retirement while leading (including eight laps to go at Monza). Plus it's hard to forget Senna's engine going with three laps to go in Montreal in a race he dominated in the rain (Prost retired early, however). All in all a year filled with mechanical trouble, bad luck and controversy but Senna never had a better season when it came to raw pace.
Of course this may seem like a Prost-hate post but it really isn't. These two years, however, certainly favoured Senna when it came to raw speed as Prost simply couldn't match Senna in the same car in 1989 and struggled at times (albeit took easy victories in other races) in 1993 to beat him in a much, much superior car.
Prost did have his own bad luck on the other hand, and he was quite unfortunate to lose the 1984 title to Lauda by half a point despite dominating the season. Plus the year before the meltdown at Renault at the end of the year took the title away from him, although in the races he did finish towards the end he was outdueled by Piquet.
The fact that he won more races in 92 means nothing. If your using that basis to crown the champion theorhetically you could have a year where Senna wins 1 race and crashes out in every other race, then Prost comes 2nd in every race. Would you then say Senna should be champion because he won more races? clearly this is a stupid point. Its like a football team losing in the world cup final and moaning that they had scored more goals in the tournament. It means nothing
shareYeah well many people disagree with who was the best.
Senna was brilliant for sure, but making your car finish a race is part of a driver's aptitude.
http://www.tccandler.com/prost-vs-senna-not-close/
No you shouldnt.
Ans shumacher is ahead, 1 because he is European, and had to fight the brit media negativity at every turn.
Senna has the cheating Mclaren Hondas, and has been a dir tbag too. when he was alive fellow drivers and the media didnt like him, calling him a moody prick who loved himself.
Eat the Neocons.
Sadly you don't actually follow f1 do you? Go google illegal traction control and benetton and you'll find scumacher was a first class cheat, way beyond anything anything any modern team has done. Utter dirt bags.
shareWas never proven.
enough of this senna worship industry.
he drove for the biggest cheats ever in sporting history. Mclaren.
you have the audacity to call other teams dirt bags. call the british teams that
they have all been convicted of cheating
Eat the Neocons.
Well Schumi definitely intentionally crashed into Damon Hill in the last race of the 1994 season to secure the championship, you would have to consider that cheating, no?
And the Benetton was proven to have illegal launch control software though they claim to never have used it during a race. Then there was the illegal fuel valve that Benetton used that let them fill their fuel tanks faster than anyone else. Not to mention his former teammate saying that Schumi's Benetton had electronic driving aids.
But why bother with facts?
Oh and odd that you suggest the British teams are the worst cheaters...Benetton was a British team (until 1996 when they switched to an Italian license).
All champions have a mean streak, part of what makes them a champion.
The nice guys end up as number 2's in the teams.
why is a brazilian scumbag so revered though? Just because he died?
He drove for Honda and Mclaren. Evil and Eviler.
The british teams have always been the ones conviceted, Brabham, bar, tyrrel, Mclaren.
But yes we know... that anglo thing of pretend it doesnt happen. Not to mention who controls the media.
Eat the Neocons.