|
Post by schumi on Dec 16, 2007 22:14:03 GMT
Bloody hell - me and Sub agree 100% on something - it MUST be true!! I think with the pair of you it’s more a case of disagreeing with me. Still, I don’t mind because that’s just your opinion – statistically you’re both wrong, and I know how much stats play a part in your decisions, Genghis. Sube, honey, it might interest you to know I’m currently working on a piece to disprove another one of your theories. Come to think of it, is there anything you and I agree on?
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Dec 16, 2007 22:33:46 GMT
statistically you’re both wrong, and I know how much stats play a part in your decisions, Genghis. Statistically, I am correct. Senna had the best car in two seasons - 1988 and 1989. In 1990 and 1991, the best cars were Ferrari (1990) and Williams (1991), but in both years, McLaren won the constructors largely because of the brilliance of Senna. So Senna was twice in the best car (1988 and 1989), and won three championships (1988, 1990 and 1991). Incidentally, poor reliability robbed him of the 1989 championship, something that Schumacher never really had to contend with. Schumacher had the best car in 1994, 2000-2004 inclusive and 2006. He had the best car in seven seasons, and won seven championships. Therefore, Senna's ratio is better. Incidentally, I have excluded incomplete seasons, such as 1999, when Scumacher had the best car, but missed half the season through injury. Also, Senna had a far greater percentage of pole positions than Schumacher. Reliabilty improved vastly in the mid 90s, which meant Schumacher won a greater percentage or races, but just look at the countless number of races Senna packed up in the lead - sometimes with a handful of laps to go. So percentage of pole postions, which largely excludes reliability, is a far fairer way to judge. And then there's the quality of oppostion and team-mates. And here there is a VAST difference. Senna was driving at the same time of Prost, Mansell and Piquet. Therefore wins between these four greats were shared out to a certain extent. Between them, they won a staggering 146 races. Schmacher was pretty much unchallenged throughout most of the early naughties, when he totted up the majority of his 91 wins. Did he have an equivlent of the wily Prost, the charging Mansell or the devious Piquet to overcome? No he just had some fat bloke called Montoya and the still to fully blossom Raikkonen and Alonso. So I judge Ayrton Senna as the best driver I've seen - both by stats and gut feeling. Schumacher is second, though.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Dec 17, 2007 6:53:04 GMT
No reply from young Schumi. See Schumi, you can't argue with the stats - Senna was the best.
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Dec 17, 2007 7:29:32 GMT
No reply from young Schumi. See Schumi, you can't argue with the stats - Senna was the best. Some of us sleep, you know. But you'll never convince me anyone is/was/will be better than Schumacher. Sorry!
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Dec 17, 2007 12:55:40 GMT
No reply from young Schumi. See Schumi, you can't argue with the stats - Senna was the best. Some of us sleep, you know. But you'll never convince me anyone is/was/will be better than Schumacher. Sorry! Schumi - Sleep is for tortoises. I notice you've made no attempt to argue with the stats - therefore, I assume you agree that statistically Senna was a better driver than Schumacher, and you're only sticking with Schumacher through misguided loyalty.
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Jan 1, 2008 22:45:01 GMT
I notice you've made no attempt to argue with the stats - therefore, I assume you agree that statistically Senna was a better driver than Schumacher, and you're only sticking with Schumacher through misguided loyalty. Found this on Wiki: According to the official Formula One website, he is "statistically the greatest driver the sport has ever seen". So it's official.
|
|
|
Post by Sainty on Jan 2, 2008 1:45:02 GMT
I notice you've made no attempt to argue with the stats - therefore, I assume you agree that statistically Senna was a better driver than Schumacher, and you're only sticking with Schumacher through misguided loyalty. Found this on Wiki: According to the official Formula One website, he is "statistically the greatest driver the sport has ever seen". So it's official. There can be no argument, Schumacher is, statistically, the best F1 driver there has ever been, but that doesn't make him the best ever, only the best to exploit cars that included traction control, launch control, abs (at times) and every other kind of driver aid that F1 has had to suffer in the last few years. Take all that away and he couldn't hold a candle to Senna, not fit to tie his nomex shoe laces.
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Jan 2, 2008 10:36:24 GMT
There can be no argument, Schumacher is, statistically, the best F1 driver there has ever been, but that doesn't make him the best ever That was never my argument - it was always that Schumacher was better statistically - something Genghis point blank refuses to believe: Statistically, I am correct. Schumacher is second, though. But now you've backed me up it's two against one (well, three if you count the official website!)
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Jan 2, 2008 12:54:16 GMT
I notice you've made no attempt to argue with the stats - therefore, I assume you agree that statistically Senna was a better driver than Schumacher, and you're only sticking with Schumacher through misguided loyalty. Found this on Wiki: According to the official Formula One website, he is "statistically the greatest driver the sport has ever seen". So it's official. Schumi - however, I gave proof that Senna was statistically a better driver - and you failed to come up with a counter argument.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Jan 2, 2008 13:02:39 GMT
But now you've backed me up it's two against one (well, three if you count the official website!) Schumi - it doesn't matter how many against one it is, when my opinion happens to be the correct one. And you're rather clutching at straws, by claiming you have Sainty's backing, when to quote Sainty: "He [Schumacher] couldn't hold a candle to Senna, not fit to tie his nomex shoe laces."
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Jan 2, 2008 14:27:21 GMT
Schumi - however, I gave proof that Senna was statistically a better driver - and you failed to come up with a counter argument. Then you'd better phone up the official website and tell them they're wrong. Schumi - it doesn't matter how many against one it is, when my opinion happens to be the correct one. Genghis, how the hell can (even you) argue with a fact? That's like saying Nicki Pedersen isn't the world champion.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Jan 2, 2008 17:56:23 GMT
Genghis, how the hell can (even you) argue with a fact? Schumi- it's not a fact at all - it's a matter of opinion and how you choose to intrepret the various statistics. In my case, I choose to look at percentage of pole positions, as it excludes reliability, and the ratio between championship winning seasons compared to driving in the best car. In both cases, Senna comes out on top.
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Jan 3, 2008 9:52:55 GMT
It bloody well is a fact.
Anyway, Happy Birthday to the man in question - 39 today.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Jan 3, 2008 12:49:28 GMT
It bloody well is a fact. Schumi - stop being deliberately obtuse - it's not a fact, it's an opinion. If you were going by race wins or championships ALONE, then it would be Schumacher. But going by the statistics I have stated, then it's Senna. It depends which stats you choose to go from.
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Jan 3, 2008 13:44:30 GMT
Schumi - stop being deliberately obtuse - it's not a fact, it's an opinion. It bloody well is a fact.
|
|