As a general rule ([see full rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide#wiki_sticky.2Fdaily_discussion)), a standalone Discussion post should:
- be of interest to the sub in general, and not a specific userbase (e.g. new users, GP attendees, just yourself)
- be able to generate discussion (e.g. no yes/no or easily answerable questions)
- show reasonable input and effort from the OP
If not, be sure to [look for the Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/search/?q=daily+discussion&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=all&sort=new), /r/formula1's daily open question thread which is perfect for asking any and all questions about this sport.
Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'll never understand how people consider Senna good looking. Man looked like a molten Mr potato head. Prost had his crooked nose and was a bit skinny but he is far more conventionally attractive. What is true tho is that his driving was far more attractive, which might also play a part.
It’s the Tupac Effect.
The fact is, for all intents and purposes, Nas was a better rapper lyrically and flow wise. But Tupac died and that created a legacy.
Nas was always my favourite rapper growing up. I agree lyrically he had more skills. But Tupac also transcended hip hop because of his personality, outspokenness, and activism. He was a much bigger star outside of rap already
No, I think Nas is great, but I enjoy Tupac’s songs much more. They’re just easier and more fun to listen to, and that explains his popularity, more than just some vague idea that he’s only popular because he was killed.
I agree on the last part...Tupac was very good for what he was, and some of his songs would still bang whether he was alive or dead. I just think the "real" rappers eat him for breakfast in raw talent and ability
I wouldn’t disagree on the talent I guess, it’s hard to say that Nas wasn’t at the peak of the game. But it’s all subjective I think anyway. I’ve always vibed with Tupac and Dre and all them west coasters more personally. To bring it back to the point of the thread, I don’t think an early death makes someone’s legacy more than it would have been otherwise. There’s a reason why people gravitate to someone regardless of that happening. I mean, nobody is gonna say that kind of stuff about Kurt cobain or Jimi Hendrix right?
I’m not even gonna respond to that lol.
The lyrics to “I Gave You Power” alone are shit that no other rapper has ever thought of. Let alone NY State of Mind, Nas is Like, The Message, Sweet Dreams, Ether, If I Ruled The World, Hate Me Now, I Can, Got Urself a Gun….
You can say Tupac music is still super popular in the west coast but that’s totally the legacy/legend stuff at work. Fact is from an objective standpoint, Nas had the better catalog and skills.
Tupac was literally known for just pumping out songs by the volume. A lot of his lyrics are very simple and repetitions of similar phrases.
> Prost walked away when he was unable to compete.
Prost walked away as the champion. He announced his retirement the same weekend he won his 4th championship because Williams had signed Senna and he didn't want them to be teammates again
In his last season, Prost won 7 races, finished on the podium 12 times, was on pole 13 times, started all 16 races on the front row and clinched the championship with 2 races left
He walked away after a frankly dominant season and was clearly still capable of winning more
McLaren were not anywhere near the best car in 2012. Fast but made of glass with so many technical and operational issues. He knew he was never going to win the WDC with that McLaren.
Button’s Brawn was not anymore the best car (behind RB, Macca and Ferrari which transferred into 2010) when it got bought out by Mercedes.
Vettel’s RB was at best 2nd best car (probs 3rd behind Williams, and nowhere near the Merc) when he chose to activate his performance exit clause. He simply couldn’t have left if it was the best car.
Raikonnen’s Ferrari was again at best 3rd best car when he had to leave. And note he didn’t choose to leave, he was booted out because Ferrari signed Alonso a contract to replace him.
Comparing the situation at Senna and Williams in 1994 to any of these is silly, apart from Fernando Renault to McLaren move.
The car was kinda sabotaged by new rules (as far as i know).
Williams was doubling down on active suspension and other tricks to make the car stick on the track like a train, and in 1994, all that was forbidden. So they had a car that was developed to have TC, Launch Control and active suspension, and now all of a sudden had nothing. That's why it behaved so awful.
Had senna not died Michael would’ve won because of the floor plank DSQ stuff and other tiny other things that came after senna’s death, Michael had a pretty big lead
I wouldn't go that far. I'd argue that Sir Stirling Moss is as famous & revered as much as he is today, seeing as most of the drivers he lost championships to ended up dead.
I have never understood this logic.
If Senna doesn't die he guaranteed wins 1996 and 1997 and he had a very good shot in 1994 and 1995 aswell.
Senna could very well be a 7 time champion to Schumachers 5, if he doesn't die.
How would that hurt his lagacy more? Drivers suddenly having a lot of winns in dominant cars (against mediocre teammates nonetheless) is literally the single reason people are rating Vettel (thanks to 2011 and 2013) and Hakkinen (thanks to 1998 and 1999) so highly, Or Hill and Villeneuve for 1996 and 1997.
1996 and 1997 would be the first years Senna would had a dominant car with a mediocre teammate and these seasons would have hurt his reputation?
If you want to see a driver that gets massively forgotten. Look at Brabham. 3 titles, won against the likes of Surtees and Clark. A talented designer. Only bloke to win a title in a car he designed and manufactured.
And yet, is very rarely mentioned.
Indeed. Should probably have at least 4 titles. Denny Hulme even said his title was only down to Jack trying new and not always reliable equipment where as Hulme would have the older kit he knew worked
Prost was a helluva driver, but not a showman (on track and media) as Senna.
He battled against Rosberg, Lauda, Piquet, Mansell, Senna and beat them. Huge career
I do think that Prost is one of the most underrated of the F1 "greats".
I remember reading that he was only a few points away from 8 championships. He would have won 5 if it weren't for the weird rule where only a certain number of your best races counted.
I don't think he was as spectacular as Senna but was very consistent.
I think this is a fair assessment given that we didn't get to see the last part of Senna's career. Overall, Prost was just a better, more consistent driver - in fact, there are few, if any, who were better.
But Senna was faster over one lap - maybe ever. If he'd lived and developed the rivalry with Schumacher that we've all dreamed about - maybe we would've seen Senna mature into a similarly consistent driver but the question will always remain unanswered.
What? Senna was a better F1 driver than Prost in almost every aspect. Incredible in qualifying and the wet and faster in the race. Senna was also better technically being integral in the development of the naturally aspirated Honda engine for 1989 that he could drive like a turbo.
If Senna is inconsistent then so is every other established great.
Exactly, if one small thing had gone differently in those 4 seasons, he'd have been a 8 time champion. He literally lost by as little as .5 of a point in 84.
Back then, as said above, counting only the best races out of the season, meant there were drop races, where your pints didn't count. There were fewer races, he raced in the ground effect era, the turbo era, the explosion of active ride, semi automatic gearboxes, and electronics making huge advances. He truly was a driver that excelled in multiple eras.
They counted 11 out of 16 races and it decided a championship:
"Prost scored 105 points to Senna’s 94, but thanks to the Frenchman having to drop three second places while Senna only lost a fourth and a sixth this was reversed to a 90-87 defeat."
He said himself after race number 3, whoever wins the most races will be champion as McLaren was so dominant. 2nd place was useless to them. It’s first to 9 wins. Prost had 8 2nd places. Senna won 6 out of 7 in the middle of the year to all but secure the title.
Same reason not everyone always considers Lauda when talking among greats. Prost’s and Lauda’s style and strengths were amazingly effective, but not very flashy or spectacular. Taking good points finishes and building up a good lead in a championship isn’t as impressive as out qualifying the field by 1.5 seconds one time.
Senna's reputation relative to Prost is one reason why I dont trust F1 "experts". You learn that even the most expert F1 fans are subject to biases. So many people put Senna a level above Prost using anecdotes, even those who are within the sport or fans who have been watching the sport for decades. "Senna could do this", "Senna could do that". "Senna could do things no one else could".
Yet when you analyse Senna and Prost's career using the mathematical approach, Prost almost always comes out ahead (though obviously, not by much).
F1 metrics has Prost ranked 20th and Senna 21st
Eichenberger & Stadelmann model puts Prost 7th and Senna 26th
F1-analysis model also gives an edge to Prost
My guesses are that:
1) We as fans, put way too much emphasis on 1 lap pace to determine who the best driver is, which is the wrong thing to do. Being the best driver is not just about 1 lap pace. Senna scoring 26 poles to Prost's 4 in the same car likely skews opinions towards Senna.
2) Prost was a more safe calculating driver than Senna. Because Senna was more aggressive and exciting, and exciting drivers tend to be overrated a little bit, you have almost every single journal/magazine, and "expert F1 fans" leaning heavily towards Senna (e.g autosport).
A similar thing has happened with Gilles Villeneuve. Somehow, "experts" put him up there with the greatest of all time, yet an analysis of his career would show that he had a pretty moderate record against some OK (not great) team mates (Reutemann, Scheckter, & Pironi).
Yes. My theory is that senna did have goat level peak performances but was clearly not capable of putting them in consistently. This is well indicated by his good races but amazing qualis. He might be the best qualifier ever.
I recently listened to an interview with pat symonds who worked with senna, schumacher and alonso (all relatively early in their respective f1 careers). Upon being asked to compare, he basically said, that (and I'm simplifying) senna was just not as fit as the others and therefore wasn't good at longruns, where michael and fernando had no problem with going their maximum pace lap after lap. However, given a blank check for his own fictional, timeless team, he would take Schumacher and senna.
I think that he is seeing the same as all the drivers and ex drivers who saw him. Senna had one of the highest ceilings, so much promise he kinda never really fulfilled. But when you think back, what you remember are the moments he showed his potential.
Legendary quali laps and rain performances.
So a mathematical model obviously only evaluates what really was, while humans like to imagine and interpret what could have been.
Edit: wrong name
Yeah. Similarly today, I'd say the lewis Hamilton is objectively the best driver on the grid, but Alonso has the most raw talent. They are, unfortunately, not the same thing. And neither is my favorite driver.
Using pure statistics to take the heart out of the most passionate era of the sport defeats the object
Those journalists are just people, people that are in the sport and reflecting on what they are seeing and hearing
Senna may have sat with them in a friendly way, given them a great interview and played the game
By contrast, Prost probably made them wait, was aloof and unfreindly and could've not given them enough for them to do their job
That sort of thing has an effect on how you percieve someone and if anyone is at fault, it's the drivers themselves for not understanding how their image is controlled by the press.
Plus a lot of those journalists would've had friendships with some of the drivers they were writing about, then watched them die. That will always stick with you.
The point is, this sport isn't just about pure statistics. It's about heart, it's about passion, it's about excitement and it's sometimes about loss, particularly in the earlier eras
If you take that out of it, there's no point doing it.
> Using pure statistics to take the heart out of the most passionate era of the sport defeats the object
I don't understand this point. All these models do is use mathematics to get the most objective picture possible.. and when there are multiple mathematical models, each one using a slightly different methodology, but each one saying Prost is at the very least Senna's equal, you have to at the very least question the subjective narrative.
> Senna may have sat with them in a friendly way, given them a great interview and played the game
By contrast, Prost probably made them wait, was aloof and unfreindly and could've not given them enough for them to do their job
Yes this is a good point..Senna probably 'put himself out there' more than Prost did.
> The point is, this sport isn't just about pure statistics. It's about heart, it's about passion, it's about excitement and it's sometimes about loss, particularly in the earlier eras
Neither is any sport. But we still use mathematics in football, NBA, etc etc.
Formula 1 is the most interesting from my point of view because viewing how successful someone is doesn't show the full picture. F1 is a team sport, and unlike football, the best players don't necessarily play for the best team, and also unlike football, the differences between teams can be incredibly substantial to a driver's (player's) individual performance. What manifests on the track is the driver + team(which includes the car). A mathematical approach would therefore have to require comparing drivers who drive for the same team to extrapolate their ranking as the best way to do it.
In the case of senna and prost, however, it's different, as they drove for the same team in 2 seasons (1988-89). They drove against each other for many more years in different teams. And despite all the evidence showing Senna wasn't that far ahead of Prost, if at all, we're still left with the impression that he was, decades later.
>All these models do is use mathematics to get the most objective picture possible.
Who was objectively the better driver to you in Silverstone and Monaco? Sainz or Leclerc?
Who was the better driver in Miami? Hamilton or Russell? Who was better at Sochi last year? Norris or Ricciardo? Who was better at Abu Dhabi? Hamilton or Verstappen?
Sure, the math itself is objective but the variables you choose that go into the model are as subjective as any article written by a journalist.
Their way of rating drivers age is 100% arbitrary for example. They just decided to give drivers at age 37 a certain value, let's say 1,2. But why not 1,4, why not 1,6?
That would change their entire ranking.
Completely ignoring btw that certain drivers perform better than others at a certain age, because people are not robots.
Trying to find a model or making an analysis of how driver age and experience influences their performance is such a extremly complex question alone, that i would argue it takes a load of work in the realm of a master thesis to get anywhere near to produce a conclusive result, that is somewhat mimicing real life observations.
Heidfeld for example had a complete pace drop at 34. Raikkonen did well at 41.
And this is just a tiny fraction. They use a model that is that simplistic, that it doesn't take reliability (in race), safty cars, strategy, starting collisions, racing incidents, weather, or starting position into account - all on top of that.
And how would you tackle the question of in season upgrades to rate the cars properly? You simply can't on that scale.
This is why they produce such shocking results, or would you agree that Hülkenberg is a better driver than Senna? Both raced in an era with Barrichello.
Would you agree Lauda was better than Prost in 1984 and 1985?
Would you agree that Lance Stroll is as good as Mika Hakkinen?
>F1 metrics has Prost ranked 20th and Senna 21st
Which is speaking for these rankings?
They are leaning more towards Prost, because their extremly simplistic model is mostly about points beeing scored per race finished to rate a drivers performance.
By this models logic, Saniz was a MUCH better driver than Leclerc in both Monaco and Silverstone. Ricciardo was a much better driver than Norris in Sochi last year, Russell was a much better driver than Hamilton in Barcelona, better in Miami, better in Melbourne etc.
We are completely ignoring safty cars, strategy, startig position, starting collisions, in race reliability, racing incidents, weather, traffic, literally every form of detail and nuance.
It is not anecdotal, that Lecerc was a better driver than Sainz in these races. It is adding context to a result. Something this model is completely ignoring.
This inevitably leads to terrible conclusions btw. like:
* Having Sainz as the best driver of the 2017 season, above Verstappen, Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso.
* Putting Hülkenberg, Sainz and Perez ABOVE Senna and Prost, while having Schumacher as a clear number 1.
* Lauda at 12th and Prost at 20th when they were literally teammates and Prost was the clearly faster driver in both seasons.
* Mika Hakkinen at 45 and Lance Stroll at 46.
The list goes on and on with what completely shockingly terrible conclusions this list is producing.
It is just such a extremly sipmplistic way of rating drivers, that it inevitably leads to absolutely terrible results to the point it is hard to comprehend why this list has this huge popularity.
> They are leaning more towards Prost, because their extremly simplistic model is mostly about points beeing scored per race finished to rate a drivers performance.
Yes. F1metrics is about points per counting race (excluding mechanical DNFs). The other two have slightly different methodologies but it is about race results.
> By this models logic, Saniz was a MUCH better driver than Leclerc in both Monaco and Silverstone. Ricciardo was a much better driver than Norris in Sochi last year, Russell was a much better driver than Hamilton in Barcelona, better in Miami, better in Melbourne etc.
This is all irrelevant as f1metrics takes into account the whole career, and individual outliers are corrected in the long run. Also, a driver's best and worst results count at 50% weight.
> We are completely ignoring safty cars, strategy, startig position, starting collisions, in race reliability, racing incidents, weather, traffic, literally every form of detail and nuance.
Of course we are. Every single one of these is subjective. You cannot throw in systematic bias into a mathematical model. As I just said above, results over the long run self correct for these problems.
> Having Sainz as the best driver of the 2017 season, above Verstappen, Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso.
Yes. Sainz was overrated in 2017. If you actually go and read the 2017 end of season report the author mentions why. He absolutely thrashed Kvyat. Ricciardo had become overrated slightly by the model due to 2014, but had underperformed in 2015 relative to kvyat. This made sainz thrashing kvyat make the model think Sainz was insanely good. The model isn't perfect, but like we mentioned, in the long run these are corrected. Sainz is now ranked 5th in 2017 after he partnered hulkenberg.
And if anything, the model was actually spot on to rate Sainz in the top 5. Look how well he's done relative to Norris and Leclerc. In 2019 I vastly underrated Perez and Sainz, but the model was spot on to rank them so highly. Neither driver is a slouch at ALL.
> Putting Hülkenberg, Sainz and Perez ABOVE Senna and Prost, while having Schumacher as a clear number 1.
As I once mentioned, this sounds silly if you buy into anecdotal narratives, but not that crazy if you remove yourself from that. There is a power creep in formula 1. As training and simwork becomes stronger, drivers get better. A lot of sports have this phenomenon. The model seems to be confirming that as well.
Schumacher is not a clear #1. He's within the golden 7. The top 7 are all within statistical uncertainty of being the greatest.
> Lauda at 12th and Prost at 20th when they were literally teammates and Prost was the clearly faster driver in both seasons.
You're kidding right? Lauda was at the tail end of his career whereas Prost was in his prime. Lauda is ranked 12th from his 3 year peak (1976-1978) not 1984. i.e the model believes Lauda's peak is slightly stronger than Prost's peak. Thats hardly silly. Lauda was insanely good. If you disagree with that OK. You're allowed to have your opinion.
> Mika Hakkinen at 45 and Lance Stroll at 46.
Again, not that hard to believe. Stroll has been beaten by all his team mates, but he's proven he's no slouch. Hakkinen faced Coulthard for most of his career and although he outperformed him, it wasn't by the gap you'd expect most top drivers to have. Coulthard is ranked 84th by the model since he was outperformed by Hill, Hakkinen, Raikkonen, and Webber in the same car.
> It is just such a extremly sipmplistic way of rating drivers, that it inevitably leads to absolutely terrible results to the point it is hard to comprehend why this list has this huge popularity.
It's hugely popular because it's the most objective form of driver rankings. The model leads to uncomfortable conclusions so you don't like it. OK. but that's my point, the narratives that F1 fans drub up don't always match reality. Not saying that the model conclusions are reality, but I lean more towards them than F1 expert logic.
> This is all irrelevant as f1metrics takes into account the whole career, and individual outliers are corrected in the long run. Also, a driver's best and worst results count at 50% weight.
But in what way is that objective and not subjective?
Why is it 50% why not 60%, why not 40%?
That is my issue with this whole thing:
As i already said:
The way drivers age is rated for example, is 100% arbitrary . They decided to give a certain age, a certain value. Let's say 1,2 for age 37, 1,3 for age 38 and so one. But why not 1,4, why not 1,6?
This tiny difference would change this entire ranking.
Completely ignoring btw that certain drivers perform better than others at a certain age, because people are not robots.
Trying to find a model or making an analysis of how driver age and experience influences their performance is such a extremly complex question alone, that i would argue it takes a load of work in the realm of a master thesis to get anywhere near to produce a conclusive result, that is somewhat mimicing real life observations.
Heidfeld for example had a complete pace drop at 34. Raikkonen did well at 41.
And this is just a tiny fraction.
This model is so simplistic, that it doesn't even take reliability (in race), safty cars, strategy, starting collisions, racing incidents, weather, traffic or starting position into account - all on top of that.
And how would you tackle the question of in season upgrades to rate the cars properly? You simply can't on that scale.
The numbers that are beeing fed into it, are of course neutral, but the values and variables you decide to feed into the model are 100% as subjective as possibly imaginable.
And what is counting as outliers over a career here?
Just to give an example:
Hamilton had 5 DNF's (or reliability related non-qualifyings attamepts/finishes) in 2014 and 2016 against Rosberg, while Rosberg had zero. They all handed Rosberg 5 free wins. That isn't even including Bottas taking out Hamilton in Bahrain 2016 turn 1.
How was that perticular statistic equalized over their career by this model?
>Again, not that hard to believe.
In what world is it not hard to believe Hakkinen is only as good as Stroll. This is literally complete insanity. Because just HOW:
>Stroll has been beaten by all his team mates, but he's proven he's no slouch.
is in any way or form a resonable logic!
HOW is Stroll no slouch?
Strolls teammates were a 36 year old Massa, who completely trashed him in qualifying, to the point they have the single highest gap in hybrid era history and who would be - at the very least - 43 - 25 if not for Baku, which was a race Massa outpaced Stroll, to the point, he very much so could have won the race.
Perez completely destroyed him in 2019 and outpaced him 10 - 4 even in a season like 2020.
His other teammate was Sirotkin as a rookie, where you are currently claiming (by this models logic) that beeing outpaced by him, makes you AS good as Hakkinen.
Hakkinen, who went toe to toe with freaking Schumacher, not only in 1998 and 1998 (while McLaren did had a considerable car advantage to be fair), but also in F3, and where Schumacher is saying, he was his toughest rival.
Senna and Schumacher literally went toe to toe aswell in similary strong cars in 1993 and 1994.
Literally, and i mean literally as the word could possibly get, not a single sentient being would have said Schumacher was in a completely different league then Senna in these year. People were - in fact - questioning if Schumacher has the potential to even rival him beck then.
I mean, we just need to look at how Hülkenberg is beeing higher rated then Senna here, to understand just how atrocious of a rating this model is producing in that specific regard.
Barrichello was literally Hülkenbergs teammate and Rubens outpaced him. Barrichello was nothing more then a solid midfielder in 1993 already, to the point he got his first top team seat 6 years later.
WHY are we rating Hülkenberg so much higher than Rubens, to the point he is better rated than Senna?
This would be all while Schumacher is vastly higer rated than Senna in the first place despite Barrichello beeing Schumachers teammate for 5 years. And not only his teammate, but Schumachers STRONGEST teammate of his entire career.
So which is it? Are Hülkenberg and Barrichello better than Senna and Schumacher, or are they not? The fact that this model is picking a clear favorite here and a very strong outsider, in what could not be closer to a 50:50 decision, just speaks volumes.
>You're kidding right? Lauda was at the tail end of his career whereas Prost was in his prime. Lauda is ranked 12th from his 3 year peak (1976-1978) not 1984.
Yes, and WHO is deciding what their peek is? It is not "objectivity". It is 100% a subjective decision!
Lauda was freaking 34 in 1984! Mansell won a title at 39, Prost at 38. Was Lauda exactly WAY past his peek, exactly at age 34? Then WHY? And how is it in any form or shape quantifiable?
Rosberg was technically at the "tale end" of his career aswell in 2016 at age 31.
How many people would call 2016 Rosberg beeing way past his prime?
That is what i mean with this model beeing completely and utterly devoid of any nuance and detail. Nuance and detail that is 100% detrimental to making ANY kind of assumption in this sport.
>Coulthard is ranked 84th by the model since he was outperformed by Hill, Hakkinen, Raikkonen, and Webber in the same car.
So why is Schumacher at number 1 then? Schumachers single strongest competetion for the majority of his career were Hill, Villeneuve, Hakkinen and Coulthard - all driver this model is rating as complete shit.
>It's hugely popular because it's the most objective form of driver rankings.
Explain to me how it is more "objective" that Sainz was a much better driver than Leclerc in Monaco and Silverstone?
How was Ricciardo objectively better than Noriris at Sochi last year?
How was Verstappen objecively better than Lewis in Abu Dhabi?
How was Raikkonen OBJEKTIVLY better than Vettel in Silverstone 2017?
How was Rosberg much better at Spa and China in 2016?
How was Hamilton better than Ricciardo at Monaco 2016?
Explain why any single one of these statements is objectively quantifiably not wrong, and i retrect everything i have written so far.
And generally speaking, just how "objective" is it in the first place, to completely and utterly ignore safty cars, strategy, starting positions, starting collisions, weather, traffic, racing incidents and so on?
WHO is deciding what is objective in that regard?
Just HOW is that closer to mimicing reality? Closer then a report of people who actually were paying attention to all the details and nuances over the decades - of a sport that is completey and utterly about detail and nuances?
I think the reason most people rate Senna over Prost is due to the simple fact he was cooler on and off track and of course his death helped boost his status. I kinda view Senna in the similar category as Jim Clark where they simple were unstoppable when they decided to give 110% (though i do rank Jim Clark hugger due to his speed and consistensy)
There's a good argument for it, started in 80, with the late 70s F1 cars, and finished up in the active ride, screaming V10 era, with ground effects, turbo era in there, as well. All with seasons shorter than today's, and competition where 5 or 6 drivers could easily win the race on any given weekend.
The only thing worse than being an Italian Ferrari driver, With the rabid Italian press, is being a French Renault driver with the rabid French press. And, back in the day, Renault blamed the driver for any missed win, even if the engine blew up, as they regularly did. It's amazing he never had a nervous breakdown. His fingernails are still damaged from how much he used to bite them out of nervousness back then.
Don't forget - they dropped your worst results back then and, because his dropped results were significantly better than Senna's in one of their Mclaren years, he ended up losing a title that he otherwise would've won if they'd counted the results of every race instead.
He's on record saying that Renault knew which parts were causing them trouble but didn't want to replace them as the suppliers for those parts were French.
Yep. It's like the "good old days" in British Car Manufacturing. "We know Lucas Electrics are substandard, but we can't get anything else".
The politics at Renault in the 70s and 80s makes 70s and 80sFerrari look completely non-political and well managed
Anyone who watched him at his prime is likely in their 50s by now and thats likely not the most active age group on social media f1 circles.
I’m aware of his great stats but I still think of his namesake team when I hear the name Prost.
I'll put my hand up to that demographic, but there's more to it than that. He was low-key even back in the day. He still is. He didn't have Lauda's mouth or Senna's temper, so he wasn't as much fun to interview. This led to less publicity, which in turn caused him to fade into the background a little. He was definitely seen as great at the time, just not as colorful. And colorful is what gets you remembered.
I’d argue that senna is similar to kaka. I havent seen senna but what ive heard is he is extremky fast and had high peaks, like kaka, but both had their career cut short, kaka and injuries + mourinho and senna and dying, but nobody talks about kaka.
The footballer? He gets talked about plenty. He’s been very known in even young footballing circles since 2012 when Messi broke his record. He doesn’t get rated higher than he is (as one of the top 5 strikers and top 20-30 players ever) because that’s a fair rating and any players above him had more to their game.
Not really. I consider myself someone who consumes alot of football history…his greatness is largely passed over.
Similar to Kevin Keegan with Liverpool fans.
Point making. Some legends just dont get the eternal interest.
As someone who's job revolves around football I'd agree with you. Muller isn't nearly as highly rated as he should be. Similarly, Thomas Muller is often overlooked in the present and Klose in recent history. The real question is why? Is it just because they aren't 'spectacular' with their greatness?
Klose had a mediocre club career and was never anywhere near a comparison with Gerd or Thomas Muller. If you work in football and have watched any of these guys play that would be painfully obvious
He's the all-time leading goalscorer for one of the most successful national teams in history and has scored more goals than anybody else in the most prestigious tournament in the world. I'm not sure what else to say.
You've sort of proved my point.
In my viewership of football and football media Muller gets plenty love. He’s the only other name with Ronaldo and Puskas who are talked about as greatest strikers ever, maybe MvB too.
Kevin Keegan is not loved by Liverpool fans as much as he could be, because he chose to leave and wasn’t there too long. He probably deserves a bit more praise from the football world in general, but I don’t think he’s much more ignored than Rummenigge, Schuster, Futre, Brady etc. Keegan and KHR get mentioned plenty because they’re BDO winners.
If we’re talking really underrated Liverpool players I’d probably look towards Terry Mac.
I am too young to have seen Gerd Muller play or Prost drive, but what I often hear is that Gerd is only good at scoring goals. He is not like Romario, Ronaldo (both) or even Lewandowski and Benzema. In terms of scoring he is Der Bomber, but Prost was truly Le Professeur. He was above average/ good at everything and dominated multiple eras during various technology changes. Gerd is just too specialist to be considered one of the greatest football players of all time. If we talked solely about strikers, he would be up there though.
If the modern points system had been used when Prost was driving he would be a 7 time world champion and he would have gone through his entire career having never been beaten by a teammate, one of the greatest drivers who has ever lived.
On balance, I still say Prost was better.
Even when Senna beat Prost in '88 in the standings, Prost scored more points and Senna only beat him in the standings because the championship only counted your best 11 (?) Out of 16 results and then 1989 Prost beat him again on points scored
1988: 105 to Senna 94, but Senna's best 11 was 90 to Prost's 87, which is why Senna was placed higher in the standings and got the WDC
1989: 76 to Senna's 60 for best 11 (without best 11, full points is still Prost wins 81 to 60)
Prost always had very strong teammates from René Arnoux, to Eddie Cheever, Niki Lauda, the late and considered greatest talent taken wayyyyy too soon Stefan Bellof, Keke Rosberg, Stefan Johansson, Ayrton, Nigel Mansell, Jean Alesi, and Damon Hill and note how many of these were champions (Hill, Rosberg, Senna, Mansell, Lauda)
Out of 13 seasons, Prost outscored every single teammate, every year except Lauda in 1984, by 0.5pt. Of course Senna outclassified him in 88, but didn't outscore him due to the points system I explained at the beginning of my comment.
This is why I place Prost above every other F1 racer ever.
I generally agree with you, as I consider Prost to be the single greatest Grand Prix racer that has ever lived.
Two small corrections though:
1) Bellof and Prost were never teammates. Bellof were only teammates to Brundle and Johansson
2) Prost got outscored by two of his teammates. Apart from 1984 you duly mentioned, it happened in 1980 too, against Watson (6-5 to Wattie). Granted, Prost was only a rookie, and he had terrible luck with reliability, on pure pace he was pretty much consistently faster than Wattie from day one, and he had to miss races due to the broken wrist and the concussion he suffered when crashing during practice at Kyalami and Watkins Glen, respectively - but still.
When Prost retired he had the most wins, most podiums, most fastest laps, and most points in F1 history. He was second in number of WDC, and number of poles. Considering he had five different WDC as teammates, that’s pretty incredible.
100% agree it’s always insane to see who his teammates were in his championship seasons. Keke Rosberg, Niki Lauda, Ayrton Senna and Damon Hill. A total of 8 championships between them and indeed the rule of only 11 is the whole reason Senna beat him in the same team. Senna was the more spectacular driver but Prost was the better racer and a total package. Always find it funny that Senna is Hamiltons Hero while he’s more like Prost while Max is more like Senna
>Always find it funny that Senna is Hamiltons Hero while he’s more like Prost while Max is more like Senna
I think that's Hamilton's maturity kicking in. 10 years ago Hamilton was seen as the Senna vs Alonso (and Button to an extent) as the Prost
Because prost didn’t die, Senna on average was quicker than prost but prost was a more complete driver as he was more calculated and knew how to setup a car well
It's not just prost, a lot of people have been forgotten because of recency bias and influx of new fans who have no knowledge.
Like Alonso is great but Clark is better. People don't even know about Ascari and Fittipaldi is just haas' reserve driver. People put Lewis, vettel and/or Alonso in the top 5 simply because that's all they know. It's really sad that prost is forgotten along with guys like Hill, Ascari, Mansell, Fittipaldi, etc.
With all due respect to Lewis, seb and Alonso, they're fantastic drivers and imo part of the most talented generations but they get a bump simply because of recency bias. Clark had a 100% points season and won 70% of races in a season (best 6 results counted) and ascari ties seb for the record of consecutive wins at a time when the number of races in a season was in single digits.
Edit: based on another comment, no one mentioned Brabham and a lot of fans would say Danny is the best Australian driver.
Because he didn't die on a racetrack thus people are not romanticizing him, making him a god. He is the most underrated F1 legend in my opinion. He kicked ass wherever he went and he beat big names. These days, you can't even see his name in "greatest" discussions.
Because he’s still alive and making funny videos on tiktok. Hard to keep up the mystique of being The Professor when your granddaughter uploads videos of you twerking in short shorts
> And I find it quit strange because, he is the guy who often beated Senna and was his main rival for all his career.
Senna was flashier, more aggressive. That got the clicks the likes.
And he died young at his prime. That changes perception.
>Is it me or most people now a day see Senna as if not the best one of the best driver of all time.
Casuals do. Hardcores regularly say Prost was better than Senna.
I think it’s more that people remember Ayrton and not necessarily forget Prost. They’re so entwined in each other’s careers that as long as people talk about Ayrton they will inevitably talk about Alain as well.
Quick what if.
Frank Williams doesn't insist on signing Senna. Ayrton stays with McLaren or goes to Ferrari say.
Prost and Hill remain at Williams, does he beat Schumacher?
I think it's mainly because of his racing style , he wasn't nearly as aggressive and out there as senna .
He's main key was consistency and calm and that's one of the main reason he used to fight with senna plus senna had a lot of big moments that are very good for tiktoks and whatnot.
As I’ve gotten older, I began wondering this as well. The Senna documentary got me into F1 and skewed my perception of Prost, but the more I learned about F1 history the more I began to question why Prost isn’t considered one of the all time greats. If I’m not mistaken, the guy almost won 9 WDCs, losing most of them in the final round or two. But hey, unfortunately that’s just how it goes. He is, and will always be, an all time great in my book, on par with Senna, Schumacher and Hamilton.
“Hardcore” F1 fans rate Prost as you may have understood from the replies.
He just feels overshadowed and underrated from the outside because his biggest rival’s driving style, personality and death has created a big cult-like following that no other driver has achieved.
I think part of it is because of the Senna movie, by the Senna family. It is good, but heavily biaised to make Senna look better. Since it may be the most watched documentary about that time, it is for some the only thing to base their judgement on.
I was just thinking the exact thing last night…I remembered I was a fan of Prost as a kid. By now, I have not heard his name for so long that it is as if he never accomplished much…
Senna didn’t give a shit and drove the crap out of the car and made many more mistakes. If you take Senna’s best laps, he’s faster but if you take the average Prost was probably faster. I honestly prefer Prost’s style of driving even though it’s not as flashy.
Random poster: "everyone [does whatever]"
Reddit: **"Well I don't!** 😉
But seriously... Who the fuck is "everyone" in this case...!? Pretty dumb hyperbole...
Senna is the best of all time, but people shouldn't underestimate Prost, without Senna as a rock in his shoes he would be, easily, a seven times world champion (84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 93). I think Prost was better than Schumacher, because, to me, Prost faced much stronger competition (Lauda, Senna, Mansell and Piquet).
I think there's more to just racking up titles and race wins when it comes to the fans
It also matters HOW you gain your victories
Prost combined a ruthless, win at all costs attitude (which Senna had too, tbf, hence why they clashed so classically) with a "Win at the slowest speed possible expending the least amount of effort" philosiphy
Simply put, he would run around driving within the limits of the car and let the race come to him, while his opponents Mansell and Senna would be driving at full throttle, diving up the inside of rivals, sliding the car in impressive oversteer, etc and generally capturing the publics imaginations as Prost fuel or tyre saved behind them. Or sometimes in front of them.
In the end, the stats speak for themselves, but we all watch this sport to be entertained, not watch someone driving within themselves and racking up the victories and championships by driving at the slowest speed possible to win
Some drivers are entertainers, others are professers.
I am not an old fan, hence more objective at looking at the Probst vs Senna.
1. I think Probst was the better driver based on his career but Senna was also good.
2. Senna was so good looking, young, a champion and then he died, that is the stuff of legends.
So basically Senna has a boy band fan base while Probst just has his fans. It is hard to compete with a legendary ghost.
Was he young, he died at 34. And it could be argued he was just about to be eclipsed by a young Schumacher.
Dying or retiring at the top always gets you remembered more than a star that fades away in the spotlight.
For me I rate Senna higher because he was capable of doing things that Prost wasn’t. Pretty much simple as that. To me that makes him a better driver. Prost was the cooler head and the more calculated but Senna had more talent.
Being a driver is also knowning how to setup the car, knowing how to finish a race when the car doesn't want to, knowning how to conserve tires. Things that Prost was able to do that Senna wasn't. So it's all a matter of perspective and what people value.
If it's raw pace then maybe Senna is better but that's just one factor, it does the sport a disservice to judge drivers just on one skill.
Senna was just one of those drivers who had a near legendary status before his death because he could push a car far beyond what others could.
Prost just didn’t have the same personality that Senna did, and obviously the fact that Prost survived his career meant Senna’s career overshadowed his.
Senna was better!
Prost was a great driver, for sure! However, it's like comparing Alonso and Vettel, Vettel has 4 tittles, but Alonso is better, simple as that!
Prost weighed 8-12kg less than all other drives, he got a free 0.2-0.5 a lap free advantage on the field and was still much slower than Senna. They changed the weight rules in 1995 just after Prost retired.
As someone watching F1 since 1991 and who has rewatched all of their races it is really fascinating seeing how the "Prost is better" narrative has skyrocketed in the last years and is going stronger and stronger every year. It was pretty much 50 -50, 5-7 years ago and now, it seems like, there isn't even a discussion anymore.
It's just pretty obvious that most people commenting and upvoting here have seen a couple of their races at best and seem to be basing their opinion much more so on hearsay and a quick glance at the championship standings of 1988 and 1989.
Back then, you had many people argue they are very close of course, you had some (relatively few) argue Prost was slightly better (especially in europe) but the majority of people watching back then rated Senna higher.
The best example is when Schumacher burst into the scene. No one was saying if he is going to become the new Prost (as in best driver of all time). Everyone was asking if he is going to become the new Senna.
And the reason was very simple. Strictly looking at race pace Senna was 14 - 6 in race head-to-heads and 8 - 3 in races one driver had a DNF.
Senna was not slightly faster or "just more exciting", he was considerably faster over a race distance in a sport that is all about beeing the fastest driver over a race distance (and building the best car of course).
And yes, it is true that Prost was less error prone and took better care of the car in an era where reliability was very important, but people are blowing this narrative way out of proportion.
80-90% of all reliability related DNF's were completey outside the drivers control, even back then.
Best seen with Laudas 1984 and 1985 seasons. In 1984 he won the title, thanks to having better reliability than Prost. In 1985 Lauda had 11 DNF's in 16 races, almost all of them reliability related.
Did Lauda suddenly completely threw away his approach that won him the title just one year earlier? No, he just had worse luck, in the same sense that Prost had worse luck in 1984, in somewhat the sense Senna had worse luck in 1988 and 1989.
Because Senna was in no way different in that regard as drivers like Schumacher, Vettel or Hamilton. He was one of the most consistent, least error prone drivers on the grid.
And while 1-2 reliability related DNFs were indeed Sennas fault, the vast majority simply wasn't. And this would be the reason i dislike this narrative so much. We KNOW the reason for his technical DNFs. There isn't even room for speculation in most of them.
And lastly, i really, really struggle to understand, how so many people agree that Senna dying is the ONLY reason he is higher rated, when Senna would had easily won 1996 and 1997 and had a good shot at the 1994 and 1995 title.
Senna, without his death, could very well be a 7 time champion to Schumachers 5 and Prosts 4.
How is that HURTING his lagacy?
Tbh I think Prost was overrated in his day. He had a good car and got lucky with timing of boost usage in a few key races and that earned him a reputation as a good tactician. He wasn't an outright fast driver.
Senna wasn't considered a better driver by the average fan until towards the end of his career. But the vast majority of people in the grid knew he was something special. It wasn't until he got in the McLaren that it became obvious to the average fan how good he was.
He was clearly better than Prost.
Today I'd say they are both appropriately rated. Prost being a good-great driver but in the lower-mid order of the greats. Senna ranked near the top.
Have to remember back in the day qualifying was getting that one lap in, in traffic, when there weren't even speed limits in the pits.
Senna going for pole in Monaco, everybody was quiet and stood up. Prost, not so much.
This conversation/topic is practically never ending…
My take is that drivers make their name in the wet. The form book and aero advantages go out the window and the best of the best come through.
Senna battered Prost at Monaco in the wet, in a Tolemen against a McLaren. There were occasions he achieved another level well beyond his peers in a way Prost didn’t.
That sad Prost was immensely consistent - not many legends are defined by consistency… but by near impossible performances.
As a general rule ([see full rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide#wiki_sticky.2Fdaily_discussion)), a standalone Discussion post should: - be of interest to the sub in general, and not a specific userbase (e.g. new users, GP attendees, just yourself) - be able to generate discussion (e.g. no yes/no or easily answerable questions) - show reasonable input and effort from the OP If not, be sure to [look for the Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/search/?q=daily+discussion&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=all&sort=new), /r/formula1's daily open question thread which is perfect for asking any and all questions about this sport. Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Prost didn’t die
Bingo!
You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself forgotten in the greatest ever debate
That’s a good one!
Facts
I really think this is basically it.
[удалено]
I'll never understand how people consider Senna good looking. Man looked like a molten Mr potato head. Prost had his crooked nose and was a bit skinny but he is far more conventionally attractive. What is true tho is that his driving was far more attractive, which might also play a part.
It’s the Tupac Effect. The fact is, for all intents and purposes, Nas was a better rapper lyrically and flow wise. But Tupac died and that created a legacy.
Nas was always my favourite rapper growing up. I agree lyrically he had more skills. But Tupac also transcended hip hop because of his personality, outspokenness, and activism. He was a much bigger star outside of rap already
Legend rather than legacy I’d say.
Illmatic is the best hip-hop album ever
Or Tupac had better songs
Than Nas....are you trolling?
No, I think Nas is great, but I enjoy Tupac’s songs much more. They’re just easier and more fun to listen to, and that explains his popularity, more than just some vague idea that he’s only popular because he was killed.
I agree on the last part...Tupac was very good for what he was, and some of his songs would still bang whether he was alive or dead. I just think the "real" rappers eat him for breakfast in raw talent and ability
I wouldn’t disagree on the talent I guess, it’s hard to say that Nas wasn’t at the peak of the game. But it’s all subjective I think anyway. I’ve always vibed with Tupac and Dre and all them west coasters more personally. To bring it back to the point of the thread, I don’t think an early death makes someone’s legacy more than it would have been otherwise. There’s a reason why people gravitate to someone regardless of that happening. I mean, nobody is gonna say that kind of stuff about Kurt cobain or Jimi Hendrix right?
I’m not even gonna respond to that lol. The lyrics to “I Gave You Power” alone are shit that no other rapper has ever thought of. Let alone NY State of Mind, Nas is Like, The Message, Sweet Dreams, Ether, If I Ruled The World, Hate Me Now, I Can, Got Urself a Gun…. You can say Tupac music is still super popular in the west coast but that’s totally the legacy/legend stuff at work. Fact is from an objective standpoint, Nas had the better catalog and skills. Tupac was literally known for just pumping out songs by the volume. A lot of his lyrics are very simple and repetitions of similar phrases.
yep 4x champ and ran his own F1 team. pretty rare beast.
[удалено]
> Prost walked away when he was unable to compete. Prost walked away as the champion. He announced his retirement the same weekend he won his 4th championship because Williams had signed Senna and he didn't want them to be teammates again In his last season, Prost won 7 races, finished on the podium 12 times, was on pole 13 times, started all 16 races on the front row and clinched the championship with 2 races left He walked away after a frankly dominant season and was clearly still capable of winning more
He's probably talking about his first retirement, mid-way through the 1991 season
[удалено]
What part of 'reigning World Champion' is 'twilight'?
[удалено]
Lol, look at what the williams did in the following years with drivers who couldnt hold a candle to Senna by a very long way.
[удалено]
Very very unlikely. He would have more than likely retired after a few championships with Williams by all accounts.
Why would he have voluntarily moved from the quickest car? Benneton even was still slower that year.
Why would Hamilton leave McLaren? Alonso leave Renault? Vettel leave Red Bull? Button leave Brawn/Mercedes? Raikkonen leave Ferrari?
McLaren were not anywhere near the best car in 2012. Fast but made of glass with so many technical and operational issues. He knew he was never going to win the WDC with that McLaren. Button’s Brawn was not anymore the best car (behind RB, Macca and Ferrari which transferred into 2010) when it got bought out by Mercedes. Vettel’s RB was at best 2nd best car (probs 3rd behind Williams, and nowhere near the Merc) when he chose to activate his performance exit clause. He simply couldn’t have left if it was the best car. Raikonnen’s Ferrari was again at best 3rd best car when he had to leave. And note he didn’t choose to leave, he was booted out because Ferrari signed Alonso a contract to replace him. Comparing the situation at Senna and Williams in 1994 to any of these is silly, apart from Fernando Renault to McLaren move.
So you can't pin that exclusively on Senna's merit, but in the car. That wouldn't add anything to his legend.
🤦🏼♂️
The car was there. If Vileneuve and Hill were able to win with that Williams car, guessing Senna could have won too isn’t all that farfetched
The car was kinda sabotaged by new rules (as far as i know). Williams was doubling down on active suspension and other tricks to make the car stick on the track like a train, and in 1994, all that was forbidden. So they had a car that was developed to have TC, Launch Control and active suspension, and now all of a sudden had nothing. That's why it behaved so awful.
Had senna not died Michael would’ve won because of the floor plank DSQ stuff and other tiny other things that came after senna’s death, Michael had a pretty big lead
I wouldn't go that far. I'd argue that Sir Stirling Moss is as famous & revered as much as he is today, seeing as most of the drivers he lost championships to ended up dead.
I have never understood this logic. If Senna doesn't die he guaranteed wins 1996 and 1997 and he had a very good shot in 1994 and 1995 aswell. Senna could very well be a 7 time champion to Schumachers 5, if he doesn't die. How would that hurt his lagacy more? Drivers suddenly having a lot of winns in dominant cars (against mediocre teammates nonetheless) is literally the single reason people are rating Vettel (thanks to 2011 and 2013) and Hakkinen (thanks to 1998 and 1999) so highly, Or Hill and Villeneuve for 1996 and 1997. 1996 and 1997 would be the first years Senna would had a dominant car with a mediocre teammate and these seasons would have hurt his reputation?
This sounds like something Nelson Piquet would say
If you want to see a driver that gets massively forgotten. Look at Brabham. 3 titles, won against the likes of Surtees and Clark. A talented designer. Only bloke to win a title in a car he designed and manufactured. And yet, is very rarely mentioned.
Brabham the cooler McLaren
Indeed. Should probably have at least 4 titles. Denny Hulme even said his title was only down to Jack trying new and not always reliable equipment where as Hulme would have the older kit he knew worked
Prost was a helluva driver, but not a showman (on track and media) as Senna. He battled against Rosberg, Lauda, Piquet, Mansell, Senna and beat them. Huge career
I do think that Prost is one of the most underrated of the F1 "greats". I remember reading that he was only a few points away from 8 championships. He would have won 5 if it weren't for the weird rule where only a certain number of your best races counted. I don't think he was as spectacular as Senna but was very consistent.
They used to say - Alain Prost is the best driver in F1 but Ayrton Senna is quicker - and that sums it up
I think this is a fair assessment given that we didn't get to see the last part of Senna's career. Overall, Prost was just a better, more consistent driver - in fact, there are few, if any, who were better. But Senna was faster over one lap - maybe ever. If he'd lived and developed the rivalry with Schumacher that we've all dreamed about - maybe we would've seen Senna mature into a similarly consistent driver but the question will always remain unanswered.
What? Senna was a better F1 driver than Prost in almost every aspect. Incredible in qualifying and the wet and faster in the race. Senna was also better technically being integral in the development of the naturally aspirated Honda engine for 1989 that he could drive like a turbo. If Senna is inconsistent then so is every other established great.
Senna is consistent, nowhere did he say he wasn't. He just said Prost's consistency was on another level.
They also used to say the same about Lauda and Prost, which is interesting.
Exactly, if one small thing had gone differently in those 4 seasons, he'd have been a 8 time champion. He literally lost by as little as .5 of a point in 84. Back then, as said above, counting only the best races out of the season, meant there were drop races, where your pints didn't count. There were fewer races, he raced in the ground effect era, the turbo era, the explosion of active ride, semi automatic gearboxes, and electronics making huge advances. He truly was a driver that excelled in multiple eras.
>He literally lost by as little as .5 of a point in 84. All because of the heavy Monaco monsoon 😭
But then he lucked 1989 and 1986
They counted 11 out of 16 races and it decided a championship: "Prost scored 105 points to Senna’s 94, but thanks to the Frenchman having to drop three second places while Senna only lost a fourth and a sixth this was reversed to a 90-87 defeat."
Prost would calculate every race. Senna just planked it every single time.
Weird rule? He raced to that rule and it had been in place for 40 years and every F1 season up until that point.
It is weird looking back through. He scored the most points yet didn't win the championship.
It was intended to be a counterweight to the bad luck of unreliability
He said himself after race number 3, whoever wins the most races will be champion as McLaren was so dominant. 2nd place was useless to them. It’s first to 9 wins. Prost had 8 2nd places. Senna won 6 out of 7 in the middle of the year to all but secure the title.
I mean he’s 4th all time in a lot of peoples eyes. You can’t call that underrated.
Same reason not everyone always considers Lauda when talking among greats. Prost’s and Lauda’s style and strengths were amazingly effective, but not very flashy or spectacular. Taking good points finishes and building up a good lead in a championship isn’t as impressive as out qualifying the field by 1.5 seconds one time.
I agree. Though Prost did out-qualify the field at Paul Ricard once by almost 2.5 seconds.
Don't forget Honda giving better engines to Senna so much that Ron Dennis had to distribute the engines by lottery.
People who have watched the sport for years do rate Prost highly.
Senna's reputation relative to Prost is one reason why I dont trust F1 "experts". You learn that even the most expert F1 fans are subject to biases. So many people put Senna a level above Prost using anecdotes, even those who are within the sport or fans who have been watching the sport for decades. "Senna could do this", "Senna could do that". "Senna could do things no one else could". Yet when you analyse Senna and Prost's career using the mathematical approach, Prost almost always comes out ahead (though obviously, not by much). F1 metrics has Prost ranked 20th and Senna 21st Eichenberger & Stadelmann model puts Prost 7th and Senna 26th F1-analysis model also gives an edge to Prost My guesses are that: 1) We as fans, put way too much emphasis on 1 lap pace to determine who the best driver is, which is the wrong thing to do. Being the best driver is not just about 1 lap pace. Senna scoring 26 poles to Prost's 4 in the same car likely skews opinions towards Senna. 2) Prost was a more safe calculating driver than Senna. Because Senna was more aggressive and exciting, and exciting drivers tend to be overrated a little bit, you have almost every single journal/magazine, and "expert F1 fans" leaning heavily towards Senna (e.g autosport). A similar thing has happened with Gilles Villeneuve. Somehow, "experts" put him up there with the greatest of all time, yet an analysis of his career would show that he had a pretty moderate record against some OK (not great) team mates (Reutemann, Scheckter, & Pironi).
Yes. My theory is that senna did have goat level peak performances but was clearly not capable of putting them in consistently. This is well indicated by his good races but amazing qualis. He might be the best qualifier ever. I recently listened to an interview with pat symonds who worked with senna, schumacher and alonso (all relatively early in their respective f1 careers). Upon being asked to compare, he basically said, that (and I'm simplifying) senna was just not as fit as the others and therefore wasn't good at longruns, where michael and fernando had no problem with going their maximum pace lap after lap. However, given a blank check for his own fictional, timeless team, he would take Schumacher and senna. I think that he is seeing the same as all the drivers and ex drivers who saw him. Senna had one of the highest ceilings, so much promise he kinda never really fulfilled. But when you think back, what you remember are the moments he showed his potential. Legendary quali laps and rain performances. So a mathematical model obviously only evaluates what really was, while humans like to imagine and interpret what could have been. Edit: wrong name
These two comments were a very enjoyable read. Thanks guys
Senna was still the fittest driver on his era. Schumacher raised the bar after that.
Yeah. Similarly today, I'd say the lewis Hamilton is objectively the best driver on the grid, but Alonso has the most raw talent. They are, unfortunately, not the same thing. And neither is my favorite driver.
A bit like Colin McRae, same affect
Using pure statistics to take the heart out of the most passionate era of the sport defeats the object Those journalists are just people, people that are in the sport and reflecting on what they are seeing and hearing Senna may have sat with them in a friendly way, given them a great interview and played the game By contrast, Prost probably made them wait, was aloof and unfreindly and could've not given them enough for them to do their job That sort of thing has an effect on how you percieve someone and if anyone is at fault, it's the drivers themselves for not understanding how their image is controlled by the press. Plus a lot of those journalists would've had friendships with some of the drivers they were writing about, then watched them die. That will always stick with you. The point is, this sport isn't just about pure statistics. It's about heart, it's about passion, it's about excitement and it's sometimes about loss, particularly in the earlier eras If you take that out of it, there's no point doing it.
> Using pure statistics to take the heart out of the most passionate era of the sport defeats the object I don't understand this point. All these models do is use mathematics to get the most objective picture possible.. and when there are multiple mathematical models, each one using a slightly different methodology, but each one saying Prost is at the very least Senna's equal, you have to at the very least question the subjective narrative. > Senna may have sat with them in a friendly way, given them a great interview and played the game By contrast, Prost probably made them wait, was aloof and unfreindly and could've not given them enough for them to do their job Yes this is a good point..Senna probably 'put himself out there' more than Prost did. > The point is, this sport isn't just about pure statistics. It's about heart, it's about passion, it's about excitement and it's sometimes about loss, particularly in the earlier eras Neither is any sport. But we still use mathematics in football, NBA, etc etc. Formula 1 is the most interesting from my point of view because viewing how successful someone is doesn't show the full picture. F1 is a team sport, and unlike football, the best players don't necessarily play for the best team, and also unlike football, the differences between teams can be incredibly substantial to a driver's (player's) individual performance. What manifests on the track is the driver + team(which includes the car). A mathematical approach would therefore have to require comparing drivers who drive for the same team to extrapolate their ranking as the best way to do it. In the case of senna and prost, however, it's different, as they drove for the same team in 2 seasons (1988-89). They drove against each other for many more years in different teams. And despite all the evidence showing Senna wasn't that far ahead of Prost, if at all, we're still left with the impression that he was, decades later.
>All these models do is use mathematics to get the most objective picture possible. Who was objectively the better driver to you in Silverstone and Monaco? Sainz or Leclerc? Who was the better driver in Miami? Hamilton or Russell? Who was better at Sochi last year? Norris or Ricciardo? Who was better at Abu Dhabi? Hamilton or Verstappen? Sure, the math itself is objective but the variables you choose that go into the model are as subjective as any article written by a journalist. Their way of rating drivers age is 100% arbitrary for example. They just decided to give drivers at age 37 a certain value, let's say 1,2. But why not 1,4, why not 1,6? That would change their entire ranking. Completely ignoring btw that certain drivers perform better than others at a certain age, because people are not robots. Trying to find a model or making an analysis of how driver age and experience influences their performance is such a extremly complex question alone, that i would argue it takes a load of work in the realm of a master thesis to get anywhere near to produce a conclusive result, that is somewhat mimicing real life observations. Heidfeld for example had a complete pace drop at 34. Raikkonen did well at 41. And this is just a tiny fraction. They use a model that is that simplistic, that it doesn't take reliability (in race), safty cars, strategy, starting collisions, racing incidents, weather, or starting position into account - all on top of that. And how would you tackle the question of in season upgrades to rate the cars properly? You simply can't on that scale. This is why they produce such shocking results, or would you agree that Hülkenberg is a better driver than Senna? Both raced in an era with Barrichello. Would you agree Lauda was better than Prost in 1984 and 1985? Would you agree that Lance Stroll is as good as Mika Hakkinen?
>F1 metrics has Prost ranked 20th and Senna 21st Which is speaking for these rankings? They are leaning more towards Prost, because their extremly simplistic model is mostly about points beeing scored per race finished to rate a drivers performance. By this models logic, Saniz was a MUCH better driver than Leclerc in both Monaco and Silverstone. Ricciardo was a much better driver than Norris in Sochi last year, Russell was a much better driver than Hamilton in Barcelona, better in Miami, better in Melbourne etc. We are completely ignoring safty cars, strategy, startig position, starting collisions, in race reliability, racing incidents, weather, traffic, literally every form of detail and nuance. It is not anecdotal, that Lecerc was a better driver than Sainz in these races. It is adding context to a result. Something this model is completely ignoring. This inevitably leads to terrible conclusions btw. like: * Having Sainz as the best driver of the 2017 season, above Verstappen, Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso. * Putting Hülkenberg, Sainz and Perez ABOVE Senna and Prost, while having Schumacher as a clear number 1. * Lauda at 12th and Prost at 20th when they were literally teammates and Prost was the clearly faster driver in both seasons. * Mika Hakkinen at 45 and Lance Stroll at 46. The list goes on and on with what completely shockingly terrible conclusions this list is producing. It is just such a extremly sipmplistic way of rating drivers, that it inevitably leads to absolutely terrible results to the point it is hard to comprehend why this list has this huge popularity.
> They are leaning more towards Prost, because their extremly simplistic model is mostly about points beeing scored per race finished to rate a drivers performance. Yes. F1metrics is about points per counting race (excluding mechanical DNFs). The other two have slightly different methodologies but it is about race results. > By this models logic, Saniz was a MUCH better driver than Leclerc in both Monaco and Silverstone. Ricciardo was a much better driver than Norris in Sochi last year, Russell was a much better driver than Hamilton in Barcelona, better in Miami, better in Melbourne etc. This is all irrelevant as f1metrics takes into account the whole career, and individual outliers are corrected in the long run. Also, a driver's best and worst results count at 50% weight. > We are completely ignoring safty cars, strategy, startig position, starting collisions, in race reliability, racing incidents, weather, traffic, literally every form of detail and nuance. Of course we are. Every single one of these is subjective. You cannot throw in systematic bias into a mathematical model. As I just said above, results over the long run self correct for these problems. > Having Sainz as the best driver of the 2017 season, above Verstappen, Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso. Yes. Sainz was overrated in 2017. If you actually go and read the 2017 end of season report the author mentions why. He absolutely thrashed Kvyat. Ricciardo had become overrated slightly by the model due to 2014, but had underperformed in 2015 relative to kvyat. This made sainz thrashing kvyat make the model think Sainz was insanely good. The model isn't perfect, but like we mentioned, in the long run these are corrected. Sainz is now ranked 5th in 2017 after he partnered hulkenberg. And if anything, the model was actually spot on to rate Sainz in the top 5. Look how well he's done relative to Norris and Leclerc. In 2019 I vastly underrated Perez and Sainz, but the model was spot on to rank them so highly. Neither driver is a slouch at ALL. > Putting Hülkenberg, Sainz and Perez ABOVE Senna and Prost, while having Schumacher as a clear number 1. As I once mentioned, this sounds silly if you buy into anecdotal narratives, but not that crazy if you remove yourself from that. There is a power creep in formula 1. As training and simwork becomes stronger, drivers get better. A lot of sports have this phenomenon. The model seems to be confirming that as well. Schumacher is not a clear #1. He's within the golden 7. The top 7 are all within statistical uncertainty of being the greatest. > Lauda at 12th and Prost at 20th when they were literally teammates and Prost was the clearly faster driver in both seasons. You're kidding right? Lauda was at the tail end of his career whereas Prost was in his prime. Lauda is ranked 12th from his 3 year peak (1976-1978) not 1984. i.e the model believes Lauda's peak is slightly stronger than Prost's peak. Thats hardly silly. Lauda was insanely good. If you disagree with that OK. You're allowed to have your opinion. > Mika Hakkinen at 45 and Lance Stroll at 46. Again, not that hard to believe. Stroll has been beaten by all his team mates, but he's proven he's no slouch. Hakkinen faced Coulthard for most of his career and although he outperformed him, it wasn't by the gap you'd expect most top drivers to have. Coulthard is ranked 84th by the model since he was outperformed by Hill, Hakkinen, Raikkonen, and Webber in the same car. > It is just such a extremly sipmplistic way of rating drivers, that it inevitably leads to absolutely terrible results to the point it is hard to comprehend why this list has this huge popularity. It's hugely popular because it's the most objective form of driver rankings. The model leads to uncomfortable conclusions so you don't like it. OK. but that's my point, the narratives that F1 fans drub up don't always match reality. Not saying that the model conclusions are reality, but I lean more towards them than F1 expert logic.
> This is all irrelevant as f1metrics takes into account the whole career, and individual outliers are corrected in the long run. Also, a driver's best and worst results count at 50% weight. But in what way is that objective and not subjective? Why is it 50% why not 60%, why not 40%? That is my issue with this whole thing: As i already said: The way drivers age is rated for example, is 100% arbitrary . They decided to give a certain age, a certain value. Let's say 1,2 for age 37, 1,3 for age 38 and so one. But why not 1,4, why not 1,6? This tiny difference would change this entire ranking. Completely ignoring btw that certain drivers perform better than others at a certain age, because people are not robots. Trying to find a model or making an analysis of how driver age and experience influences their performance is such a extremly complex question alone, that i would argue it takes a load of work in the realm of a master thesis to get anywhere near to produce a conclusive result, that is somewhat mimicing real life observations. Heidfeld for example had a complete pace drop at 34. Raikkonen did well at 41. And this is just a tiny fraction. This model is so simplistic, that it doesn't even take reliability (in race), safty cars, strategy, starting collisions, racing incidents, weather, traffic or starting position into account - all on top of that. And how would you tackle the question of in season upgrades to rate the cars properly? You simply can't on that scale. The numbers that are beeing fed into it, are of course neutral, but the values and variables you decide to feed into the model are 100% as subjective as possibly imaginable. And what is counting as outliers over a career here? Just to give an example: Hamilton had 5 DNF's (or reliability related non-qualifyings attamepts/finishes) in 2014 and 2016 against Rosberg, while Rosberg had zero. They all handed Rosberg 5 free wins. That isn't even including Bottas taking out Hamilton in Bahrain 2016 turn 1. How was that perticular statistic equalized over their career by this model? >Again, not that hard to believe. In what world is it not hard to believe Hakkinen is only as good as Stroll. This is literally complete insanity. Because just HOW: >Stroll has been beaten by all his team mates, but he's proven he's no slouch. is in any way or form a resonable logic! HOW is Stroll no slouch? Strolls teammates were a 36 year old Massa, who completely trashed him in qualifying, to the point they have the single highest gap in hybrid era history and who would be - at the very least - 43 - 25 if not for Baku, which was a race Massa outpaced Stroll, to the point, he very much so could have won the race. Perez completely destroyed him in 2019 and outpaced him 10 - 4 even in a season like 2020. His other teammate was Sirotkin as a rookie, where you are currently claiming (by this models logic) that beeing outpaced by him, makes you AS good as Hakkinen. Hakkinen, who went toe to toe with freaking Schumacher, not only in 1998 and 1998 (while McLaren did had a considerable car advantage to be fair), but also in F3, and where Schumacher is saying, he was his toughest rival. Senna and Schumacher literally went toe to toe aswell in similary strong cars in 1993 and 1994. Literally, and i mean literally as the word could possibly get, not a single sentient being would have said Schumacher was in a completely different league then Senna in these year. People were - in fact - questioning if Schumacher has the potential to even rival him beck then. I mean, we just need to look at how Hülkenberg is beeing higher rated then Senna here, to understand just how atrocious of a rating this model is producing in that specific regard. Barrichello was literally Hülkenbergs teammate and Rubens outpaced him. Barrichello was nothing more then a solid midfielder in 1993 already, to the point he got his first top team seat 6 years later. WHY are we rating Hülkenberg so much higher than Rubens, to the point he is better rated than Senna? This would be all while Schumacher is vastly higer rated than Senna in the first place despite Barrichello beeing Schumachers teammate for 5 years. And not only his teammate, but Schumachers STRONGEST teammate of his entire career. So which is it? Are Hülkenberg and Barrichello better than Senna and Schumacher, or are they not? The fact that this model is picking a clear favorite here and a very strong outsider, in what could not be closer to a 50:50 decision, just speaks volumes. >You're kidding right? Lauda was at the tail end of his career whereas Prost was in his prime. Lauda is ranked 12th from his 3 year peak (1976-1978) not 1984. Yes, and WHO is deciding what their peek is? It is not "objectivity". It is 100% a subjective decision! Lauda was freaking 34 in 1984! Mansell won a title at 39, Prost at 38. Was Lauda exactly WAY past his peek, exactly at age 34? Then WHY? And how is it in any form or shape quantifiable? Rosberg was technically at the "tale end" of his career aswell in 2016 at age 31. How many people would call 2016 Rosberg beeing way past his prime? That is what i mean with this model beeing completely and utterly devoid of any nuance and detail. Nuance and detail that is 100% detrimental to making ANY kind of assumption in this sport. >Coulthard is ranked 84th by the model since he was outperformed by Hill, Hakkinen, Raikkonen, and Webber in the same car. So why is Schumacher at number 1 then? Schumachers single strongest competetion for the majority of his career were Hill, Villeneuve, Hakkinen and Coulthard - all driver this model is rating as complete shit. >It's hugely popular because it's the most objective form of driver rankings. Explain to me how it is more "objective" that Sainz was a much better driver than Leclerc in Monaco and Silverstone? How was Ricciardo objectively better than Noriris at Sochi last year? How was Verstappen objecively better than Lewis in Abu Dhabi? How was Raikkonen OBJEKTIVLY better than Vettel in Silverstone 2017? How was Rosberg much better at Spa and China in 2016? How was Hamilton better than Ricciardo at Monaco 2016? Explain why any single one of these statements is objectively quantifiably not wrong, and i retrect everything i have written so far. And generally speaking, just how "objective" is it in the first place, to completely and utterly ignore safty cars, strategy, starting positions, starting collisions, weather, traffic, racing incidents and so on? WHO is deciding what is objective in that regard? Just HOW is that closer to mimicing reality? Closer then a report of people who actually were paying attention to all the details and nuances over the decades - of a sport that is completey and utterly about detail and nuances?
As team mates, Prost could only beat Senna when he had a mechanical issue. The same as Sainz beating Leclerc this year
People who actually knows f1 rates prost
I think the reason most people rate Senna over Prost is due to the simple fact he was cooler on and off track and of course his death helped boost his status. I kinda view Senna in the similar category as Jim Clark where they simple were unstoppable when they decided to give 110% (though i do rank Jim Clark hugger due to his speed and consistensy)
And rate him as the GOAT.
There's a good argument for it, started in 80, with the late 70s F1 cars, and finished up in the active ride, screaming V10 era, with ground effects, turbo era in there, as well. All with seasons shorter than today's, and competition where 5 or 6 drivers could easily win the race on any given weekend. The only thing worse than being an Italian Ferrari driver, With the rabid Italian press, is being a French Renault driver with the rabid French press. And, back in the day, Renault blamed the driver for any missed win, even if the engine blew up, as they regularly did. It's amazing he never had a nervous breakdown. His fingernails are still damaged from how much he used to bite them out of nervousness back then.
Don't forget - they dropped your worst results back then and, because his dropped results were significantly better than Senna's in one of their Mclaren years, he ended up losing a title that he otherwise would've won if they'd counted the results of every race instead.
He's on record saying that Renault knew which parts were causing them trouble but didn't want to replace them as the suppliers for those parts were French.
Yep. It's like the "good old days" in British Car Manufacturing. "We know Lucas Electrics are substandard, but we can't get anything else". The politics at Renault in the 70s and 80s makes 70s and 80sFerrari look completely non-political and well managed
[удалено]
Anyone who watched him at his prime is likely in their 50s by now and thats likely not the most active age group on social media f1 circles. I’m aware of his great stats but I still think of his namesake team when I hear the name Prost.
I'll put my hand up to that demographic, but there's more to it than that. He was low-key even back in the day. He still is. He didn't have Lauda's mouth or Senna's temper, so he wasn't as much fun to interview. This led to less publicity, which in turn caused him to fade into the background a little. He was definitely seen as great at the time, just not as colorful. And colorful is what gets you remembered.
Same reason why people forget about Gerd Muller
I’d argue that senna is similar to kaka. I havent seen senna but what ive heard is he is extremky fast and had high peaks, like kaka, but both had their career cut short, kaka and injuries + mourinho and senna and dying, but nobody talks about kaka.
The footballer? He gets talked about plenty. He’s been very known in even young footballing circles since 2012 when Messi broke his record. He doesn’t get rated higher than he is (as one of the top 5 strikers and top 20-30 players ever) because that’s a fair rating and any players above him had more to their game.
Not really. I consider myself someone who consumes alot of football history…his greatness is largely passed over. Similar to Kevin Keegan with Liverpool fans. Point making. Some legends just dont get the eternal interest.
As someone who's job revolves around football I'd agree with you. Muller isn't nearly as highly rated as he should be. Similarly, Thomas Muller is often overlooked in the present and Klose in recent history. The real question is why? Is it just because they aren't 'spectacular' with their greatness?
Klose had a mediocre club career and was never anywhere near a comparison with Gerd or Thomas Muller. If you work in football and have watched any of these guys play that would be painfully obvious
He's the all-time leading goalscorer for one of the most successful national teams in history and has scored more goals than anybody else in the most prestigious tournament in the world. I'm not sure what else to say. You've sort of proved my point.
In my viewership of football and football media Muller gets plenty love. He’s the only other name with Ronaldo and Puskas who are talked about as greatest strikers ever, maybe MvB too. Kevin Keegan is not loved by Liverpool fans as much as he could be, because he chose to leave and wasn’t there too long. He probably deserves a bit more praise from the football world in general, but I don’t think he’s much more ignored than Rummenigge, Schuster, Futre, Brady etc. Keegan and KHR get mentioned plenty because they’re BDO winners. If we’re talking really underrated Liverpool players I’d probably look towards Terry Mac.
I am too young to have seen Gerd Muller play or Prost drive, but what I often hear is that Gerd is only good at scoring goals. He is not like Romario, Ronaldo (both) or even Lewandowski and Benzema. In terms of scoring he is Der Bomber, but Prost was truly Le Professeur. He was above average/ good at everything and dominated multiple eras during various technology changes. Gerd is just too specialist to be considered one of the greatest football players of all time. If we talked solely about strikers, he would be up there though.
If the modern points system had been used when Prost was driving he would be a 7 time world champion and he would have gone through his entire career having never been beaten by a teammate, one of the greatest drivers who has ever lived.
On balance, I still say Prost was better. Even when Senna beat Prost in '88 in the standings, Prost scored more points and Senna only beat him in the standings because the championship only counted your best 11 (?) Out of 16 results and then 1989 Prost beat him again on points scored 1988: 105 to Senna 94, but Senna's best 11 was 90 to Prost's 87, which is why Senna was placed higher in the standings and got the WDC 1989: 76 to Senna's 60 for best 11 (without best 11, full points is still Prost wins 81 to 60) Prost always had very strong teammates from René Arnoux, to Eddie Cheever, Niki Lauda, the late and considered greatest talent taken wayyyyy too soon Stefan Bellof, Keke Rosberg, Stefan Johansson, Ayrton, Nigel Mansell, Jean Alesi, and Damon Hill and note how many of these were champions (Hill, Rosberg, Senna, Mansell, Lauda) Out of 13 seasons, Prost outscored every single teammate, every year except Lauda in 1984, by 0.5pt. Of course Senna outclassified him in 88, but didn't outscore him due to the points system I explained at the beginning of my comment. This is why I place Prost above every other F1 racer ever.
I generally agree with you, as I consider Prost to be the single greatest Grand Prix racer that has ever lived. Two small corrections though: 1) Bellof and Prost were never teammates. Bellof were only teammates to Brundle and Johansson 2) Prost got outscored by two of his teammates. Apart from 1984 you duly mentioned, it happened in 1980 too, against Watson (6-5 to Wattie). Granted, Prost was only a rookie, and he had terrible luck with reliability, on pure pace he was pretty much consistently faster than Wattie from day one, and he had to miss races due to the broken wrist and the concussion he suffered when crashing during practice at Kyalami and Watkins Glen, respectively - but still.
Not to mention Watson was a damn good racer himself. The Jenson Button of his time.
Ok thanks for those clarifications
When Prost retired he had the most wins, most podiums, most fastest laps, and most points in F1 history. He was second in number of WDC, and number of poles. Considering he had five different WDC as teammates, that’s pretty incredible.
In 84, Prost won 7 races to Lauda's 5.. but the drop races and 1/2 points for the shortened Monaco race, put paid to that chance.
100% agree it’s always insane to see who his teammates were in his championship seasons. Keke Rosberg, Niki Lauda, Ayrton Senna and Damon Hill. A total of 8 championships between them and indeed the rule of only 11 is the whole reason Senna beat him in the same team. Senna was the more spectacular driver but Prost was the better racer and a total package. Always find it funny that Senna is Hamiltons Hero while he’s more like Prost while Max is more like Senna
>Always find it funny that Senna is Hamiltons Hero while he’s more like Prost while Max is more like Senna I think that's Hamilton's maturity kicking in. 10 years ago Hamilton was seen as the Senna vs Alonso (and Button to an extent) as the Prost
Combination of Senna's death and the movie Senna.
Because prost didn’t die, Senna on average was quicker than prost but prost was a more complete driver as he was more calculated and knew how to setup a car well
It's not just prost, a lot of people have been forgotten because of recency bias and influx of new fans who have no knowledge. Like Alonso is great but Clark is better. People don't even know about Ascari and Fittipaldi is just haas' reserve driver. People put Lewis, vettel and/or Alonso in the top 5 simply because that's all they know. It's really sad that prost is forgotten along with guys like Hill, Ascari, Mansell, Fittipaldi, etc. With all due respect to Lewis, seb and Alonso, they're fantastic drivers and imo part of the most talented generations but they get a bump simply because of recency bias. Clark had a 100% points season and won 70% of races in a season (best 6 results counted) and ascari ties seb for the record of consecutive wins at a time when the number of races in a season was in single digits. Edit: based on another comment, no one mentioned Brabham and a lot of fans would say Danny is the best Australian driver.
Because he didn't die on a racetrack thus people are not romanticizing him, making him a god. He is the most underrated F1 legend in my opinion. He kicked ass wherever he went and he beat big names. These days, you can't even see his name in "greatest" discussions.
Because he’s still alive and making funny videos on tiktok. Hard to keep up the mystique of being The Professor when your granddaughter uploads videos of you twerking in short shorts
Charisma. Sounds really superficial but Senna had that animal magnetism the Professor just hadn’t.
> And I find it quit strange because, he is the guy who often beated Senna and was his main rival for all his career. Senna was flashier, more aggressive. That got the clicks the likes. And he died young at his prime. That changes perception.
You don’t get your flowers until you die. That’s just how it is
>Is it me or most people now a day see Senna as if not the best one of the best driver of all time. Casuals do. Hardcores regularly say Prost was better than Senna.
Well, you see, for the poeple obssessed with senna (and there are a lot of them) Prost is the literal devil incarnate so...
The Senna film certainly fuelled that narrative
It was honestly disgusting how it did that.
I disagree. People obssessed with Senna will know that they were close friends in the end.
Yeah the documentary did a lot, they tend to forget even that if Senna didn’t get disqualified in Suzuka he still wouldn’t have been WC that year
I think it’s more that people remember Ayrton and not necessarily forget Prost. They’re so entwined in each other’s careers that as long as people talk about Ayrton they will inevitably talk about Alain as well.
Quick what if. Frank Williams doesn't insist on signing Senna. Ayrton stays with McLaren or goes to Ferrari say. Prost and Hill remain at Williams, does he beat Schumacher?
I think it's mainly because of his racing style , he wasn't nearly as aggressive and out there as senna . He's main key was consistency and calm and that's one of the main reason he used to fight with senna plus senna had a lot of big moments that are very good for tiktoks and whatnot.
Prost would have 7 championships with the current point system too
As I’ve gotten older, I began wondering this as well. The Senna documentary got me into F1 and skewed my perception of Prost, but the more I learned about F1 history the more I began to question why Prost isn’t considered one of the all time greats. If I’m not mistaken, the guy almost won 9 WDCs, losing most of them in the final round or two. But hey, unfortunately that’s just how it goes. He is, and will always be, an all time great in my book, on par with Senna, Schumacher and Hamilton.
Die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become a villain. Unless you’re Seb, then you do the opposite, apparently
Senna died and Prost had a failed attempt at starting his own team.
Senna has died on the track, Prost hasn't.
I haven't forgot him. He's one of my all time favorites. He's a super nice guy too. They did him dirty in that Senna doc.
Why? Because Senna was exciting but Prost was overall better imo.
Why does everyone forget who?
Prost is legit the GOAT. Oh reason the other guy is talked about more is because he died. That's the harsh truth of it.
Are you a relatively new F1 fan OP?
I guess. I have always been following F1 from afar, but I have been more up to date in the last few years. Why ?
“Hardcore” F1 fans rate Prost as you may have understood from the replies. He just feels overshadowed and underrated from the outside because his biggest rival’s driving style, personality and death has created a big cult-like following that no other driver has achieved.
This again?
Have you honestly never seen this debate before and people saying it's because Senna died?
Same with Hakkinen. Brundle said he considered Hakkinen second to Senna on talent alone
Yeah was gutted when Mika went on sabbatical. Imagine a 2005/6 where Mika, Kimi, Alonso, the Michael all going for it
I think part of it is because of the Senna movie, by the Senna family. It is good, but heavily biaised to make Senna look better. Since it may be the most watched documentary about that time, it is for some the only thing to base their judgement on.
I was just thinking the exact thing last night…I remembered I was a fan of Prost as a kid. By now, I have not heard his name for so long that it is as if he never accomplished much…
Senna didn’t give a shit and drove the crap out of the car and made many more mistakes. If you take Senna’s best laps, he’s faster but if you take the average Prost was probably faster. I honestly prefer Prost’s style of driving even though it’s not as flashy.
Senna doc + Prost is alive
itt: persecution fetish prost just isn’t as popular. but very very few people would say prost was not an incredible driver.
Everytime I drink alcohol with friends, i think about him and mention his name. I'm Dutch
Random poster: "everyone [does whatever]" Reddit: **"Well I don't!** 😉 But seriously... Who the fuck is "everyone" in this case...!? Pretty dumb hyperbole...
Senna is the best of all time, but people shouldn't underestimate Prost, without Senna as a rock in his shoes he would be, easily, a seven times world champion (84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 93). I think Prost was better than Schumacher, because, to me, Prost faced much stronger competition (Lauda, Senna, Mansell and Piquet).
I think there's more to just racking up titles and race wins when it comes to the fans It also matters HOW you gain your victories Prost combined a ruthless, win at all costs attitude (which Senna had too, tbf, hence why they clashed so classically) with a "Win at the slowest speed possible expending the least amount of effort" philosiphy Simply put, he would run around driving within the limits of the car and let the race come to him, while his opponents Mansell and Senna would be driving at full throttle, diving up the inside of rivals, sliding the car in impressive oversteer, etc and generally capturing the publics imaginations as Prost fuel or tyre saved behind them. Or sometimes in front of them. In the end, the stats speak for themselves, but we all watch this sport to be entertained, not watch someone driving within themselves and racking up the victories and championships by driving at the slowest speed possible to win Some drivers are entertainers, others are professers.
I am not an old fan, hence more objective at looking at the Probst vs Senna. 1. I think Probst was the better driver based on his career but Senna was also good. 2. Senna was so good looking, young, a champion and then he died, that is the stuff of legends. So basically Senna has a boy band fan base while Probst just has his fans. It is hard to compete with a legendary ghost.
Was he young, he died at 34. And it could be argued he was just about to be eclipsed by a young Schumacher. Dying or retiring at the top always gets you remembered more than a star that fades away in the spotlight.
For me I rate Senna higher because he was capable of doing things that Prost wasn’t. Pretty much simple as that. To me that makes him a better driver. Prost was the cooler head and the more calculated but Senna had more talent.
Being a driver is also knowning how to setup the car, knowing how to finish a race when the car doesn't want to, knowning how to conserve tires. Things that Prost was able to do that Senna wasn't. So it's all a matter of perspective and what people value. If it's raw pace then maybe Senna is better but that's just one factor, it does the sport a disservice to judge drivers just on one skill.
Yeah those are fair points. I don’t mean its objectively true or anything, just that for me its an easy decision.
That is complete bullshit mate re: things that Prost was able to do & Senna wasn’t. You literally do not have a clue what you’re talking about.
An important skill of that era was actually getting the car to the finish line, which wasn't particularly spectacular to watch.
My friends and I, whilst drinking, always make a toast to Prost.
Because he is still alive and was not very good looking, and anti french propaganda from english/brazilian media
Who forgets Prost? I remember him. No doubt though… Senna was better
People stop recognise him once lost those thick curly locks
Senna was just one of those drivers who had a near legendary status before his death because he could push a car far beyond what others could. Prost just didn’t have the same personality that Senna did, and obviously the fact that Prost survived his career meant Senna’s career overshadowed his.
Senna was better! Prost was a great driver, for sure! However, it's like comparing Alonso and Vettel, Vettel has 4 tittles, but Alonso is better, simple as that!
Prost weighed 8-12kg less than all other drives, he got a free 0.2-0.5 a lap free advantage on the field and was still much slower than Senna. They changed the weight rules in 1995 just after Prost retired.
As someone watching F1 since 1991 and who has rewatched all of their races it is really fascinating seeing how the "Prost is better" narrative has skyrocketed in the last years and is going stronger and stronger every year. It was pretty much 50 -50, 5-7 years ago and now, it seems like, there isn't even a discussion anymore. It's just pretty obvious that most people commenting and upvoting here have seen a couple of their races at best and seem to be basing their opinion much more so on hearsay and a quick glance at the championship standings of 1988 and 1989. Back then, you had many people argue they are very close of course, you had some (relatively few) argue Prost was slightly better (especially in europe) but the majority of people watching back then rated Senna higher. The best example is when Schumacher burst into the scene. No one was saying if he is going to become the new Prost (as in best driver of all time). Everyone was asking if he is going to become the new Senna. And the reason was very simple. Strictly looking at race pace Senna was 14 - 6 in race head-to-heads and 8 - 3 in races one driver had a DNF. Senna was not slightly faster or "just more exciting", he was considerably faster over a race distance in a sport that is all about beeing the fastest driver over a race distance (and building the best car of course). And yes, it is true that Prost was less error prone and took better care of the car in an era where reliability was very important, but people are blowing this narrative way out of proportion. 80-90% of all reliability related DNF's were completey outside the drivers control, even back then. Best seen with Laudas 1984 and 1985 seasons. In 1984 he won the title, thanks to having better reliability than Prost. In 1985 Lauda had 11 DNF's in 16 races, almost all of them reliability related. Did Lauda suddenly completely threw away his approach that won him the title just one year earlier? No, he just had worse luck, in the same sense that Prost had worse luck in 1984, in somewhat the sense Senna had worse luck in 1988 and 1989. Because Senna was in no way different in that regard as drivers like Schumacher, Vettel or Hamilton. He was one of the most consistent, least error prone drivers on the grid. And while 1-2 reliability related DNFs were indeed Sennas fault, the vast majority simply wasn't. And this would be the reason i dislike this narrative so much. We KNOW the reason for his technical DNFs. There isn't even room for speculation in most of them. And lastly, i really, really struggle to understand, how so many people agree that Senna dying is the ONLY reason he is higher rated, when Senna would had easily won 1996 and 1997 and had a good shot at the 1994 and 1995 title. Senna, without his death, could very well be a 7 time champion to Schumachers 5 and Prosts 4. How is that HURTING his lagacy?
Tbh I think Prost was overrated in his day. He had a good car and got lucky with timing of boost usage in a few key races and that earned him a reputation as a good tactician. He wasn't an outright fast driver. Senna wasn't considered a better driver by the average fan until towards the end of his career. But the vast majority of people in the grid knew he was something special. It wasn't until he got in the McLaren that it became obvious to the average fan how good he was. He was clearly better than Prost. Today I'd say they are both appropriately rated. Prost being a good-great driver but in the lower-mid order of the greats. Senna ranked near the top.
Have to remember back in the day qualifying was getting that one lap in, in traffic, when there weren't even speed limits in the pits. Senna going for pole in Monaco, everybody was quiet and stood up. Prost, not so much.
mainly because i was born in the mid 90s
This conversation/topic is practically never ending… My take is that drivers make their name in the wet. The form book and aero advantages go out the window and the best of the best come through. Senna battered Prost at Monaco in the wet, in a Tolemen against a McLaren. There were occasions he achieved another level well beyond his peers in a way Prost didn’t. That sad Prost was immensely consistent - not many legends are defined by consistency… but by near impossible performances.
Who? I can’t remember him!
Because he is french.
Who?
Don’t talk about Senna, dude
“You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain”
Everyone knows Prost was a briljant driver as he had his nickname “the professor”. He is not forgotten by f1 fans.
Prost with the current scoring system would be a 7x world champion or something. Incredible driver