Great interview Joe, I was always an F1 fan and Jordan gave me a huge Irish interested, didn't always agree with Eddie's rhyme or reason but hugely admire him. The green 7 up 191 , Demon fighting with Ralf for the win in Spa , Frenzen in Monza , Fishi in Brazil great memories , great stuff Joe
You guys are old (like me) that's why you are clinging to the old days. I mean reflecting on Eddie's story about Eddie Irvin I'm thinking how coolness comes to him easy whereas now you have premadonnas like Lewis Hamilton who tries much too hard to "look" cool.
Thanks, Eddie for all the insight and wisdom. You really say it the way it is. I agree there are too many races and I only look at the highlights. 22 races around the world take the exclusivity out of it.
I really do not care much for cars or watching F1. I am however compelled by the zeal of people in that industry. The precision in the decision making and the brevity of their speech is astounding, every nano-second is accounted for and the drive for those marginal gains is simply breathtaking. Great interview OTB. Nar laga Dia thu.
Eddies turned into a ‘thinker’ now he’s off the treadmill. I guess that’s why sons f1 people take a step back, it’s so intense there’s no room for anything else
That's a phenomenal interview. Joe hardly got a word in but did very well to guide Eddie's monologue. Had Eddie had a couple of Irish coffees beforehand? He had a few controversial comments for good measure.
I watch a lot of Off The Ball podcasts which are generally very interesting. This was or me a super interview, no doubt Eddie is a very interesting and successful guy, well deserved but kudos to Joe for a superb interview with inciteful questions and not all related to sport. Excellent job
Synge St school was a tough school in the 70/80's. I remember getting ten of the best on each hand from brother Dalton - with heavy drumsticks instead of the leather strap! Back in the abuse days LOL
There should be an "Eddie Jordan" school of F1, the amount of talent in Ireland which has been and still is going unchecked is huge, same with motorcycle riders, unchecked, will never get past setting an unreal lap time in Mondello park as a poor privateer, whilst in England, Spain and Italy etc. drivers/riders are been spoiled for choice.
He likes boats.. so this looks like a cabin backdrop or similar at a docking bay. (lower latency landline based internet connection for streaming than internet satellite on a yacht which can be too chopy for internet streaming broadcast)
I hope Eddie's wish for fewer races comes true. As he says we've learned from the virus that people not the 💰 cash needs to be at the sports pinnacle. F1 for it's own good doesn't need to be everywhere.
Why the big majority of people in F1 changed the opinion about Senna? Because they know that he is the greatest and that fact makes much more difficulties in the F1 business and within the popularity of the current era and current drivers. Dead Senna is a threat to F1 business. Almost every driver voted for Senna as the GOAT and than they changed the opinion later on. The Senna movie also caused a lot of trouble for the F1 establishment as it clearly showed how dirty they were towards Senna. Jordan is part of this propaganda. And Eddie Bonham is the greatest Rock drummer.
Well the Senna documentary lies about the dirty side of the track with regards to Suzuka. But he was definitely robbed the year before so it is a little hard to see anything as a absolute fact. Senna should have been disqualified for Suzuka 1990 as Michael was in 1997
Pierre Lopes you don’t understand much. Schumacher drove illegal car in 1994 and Senna had a car that was untested, that’s how dirty was that business. It was to equalise two drivers with dirty job. Senna had poles!!!Schumacher had points as his car was way better. But Senna manage to get the pole with inferior car tells you the difference. Senna was 34, Schu was 24, it’s about aggression and reflexes. With experience you are winning the races and championships but not poles!!! Poles are only about the speed!!! Senna with 24 was faster than any other driver( race in 1984, Mercedes 190-all F1 champions were racing that day, rookie Senna won the race)!
@@justdoit8014 senna also has a superior car for a while, sennas car had one of the most advanced traction control sytsems so you dont know your f1 history very well.he was behind Schumacher in the 1994 season and he was under a lot of pressure and making mistakes. He was feeling it. Even when he crashed in 1994 it was Schumacher chasing him down forcing him to make mistakes. To say senna was better than schunacher indefinitely is just stupid
Here is the interview with Eddie in which he said that Senna is the GOAT ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gbHyz-Q-NKw.html And here are the statistics: Senna vs Prost in the same car 1988/1989: Senna : 14 victories- Prost: 11 Senna: 26 poles- Prost: 4 Senna vs Prost in 161 races: Senna: 41 victories- Prost: 40 7 years in McLaren: Prost:30 victories-Senna in 6 years: 35 victories. Poles: Senna:65- Prost: 22 (161) Grand slams: Senna:4 , Prost:0 Monaco: Senna:6, Prost:4 Spa: Senna:6, Prost: 2 And the help from the political background is not included, which Prost certainly had.
Here is something I would agreed on the most part but statistics are not always 'everything'. Here goes: At Mclaren in 1988 and 1989: Total points scored (not including dropped points) Prost: 186, Senna: 154. Total points scored (including dropped points) Prost 163, Senna 150 (Notice how many points Prost had to drop including the Best of 11 finishes both seasons). Prost had to drop 18 points (3 Seconds) while Senna only dropped 3 points (1 fourth) in 1988. It was soon after in 1991 where dropped points were eliminated because the driver with the most points should win to preserve fairness. Very simple. Your other statistics are completely irrelevant. Why? They are not racing head to head in the same car. So why bring it up? Here are the FACTS: 1. Senna started in a Toleman and raced 2 years in a Lotus that was the third best car, while Alain was in a dominant 1984 Mclaren TAG-Porsche and most of 1985 before the Williams Honda took over late in the season. Just as Senna's car was better than Ferrari of Alain with 1990 and even more evident in 1991. Of course, you just conveniently stacked the difference. 2. Alain won the 1986 title in a car nowhere as good as Williams-Honda (it was a 3 years old car) and even at times a shade less than Lotus-Renault. All of Senna's 3 titles coming with dominant Mclaren Honda. 3. Not all Mclaren seasons during that time were strong. 1980 Mclaren was a piece of trash when Alain started, but he scored points in his first two races. Ayrton never matched that on his Toleman in 1984, which was much better than what Alain had. 4. Also even when Senna didn't had the best engines from 1992 to 1993. Mclaren was still a great team to deliver a car capable to win. This was why your statistics are skewed. 5. Poles don't matter much if you don't convert them in wins. Formula 1 victory is based on the car that finishes first. Ask Piquet, Senna, Nico Rosberg and others why they didn't win the F-1 Title despite getting the 'Pole Award' for the year. Same with Grand Slams, they are 'nice' to have but if you ask a driver to preserve their equipment to win more races and blowing up. They would say the former. 6. Monaco and Spa are great circuits. However, they are not the only two races on the calendar. Speaking of political backgrounds. Don't give me this BS. Even Senna played politics, all TOP DRIVERS did way back from the 1950s to get into the BEST CARS! They just all played 'differently'. Perhaps you want to listen to F1 Podcast of Julian Jacoby, F1 driver agent for BOTH 'Alain' and 'Ayrton' during their Mclaren days. He could tell you far more than you need to know. I know you are a fan of Senna, as most are. But let's be FAIR. Comparing things that are relevant. Senna was no doubt great, no denying that. But Eddie Jordan was right in his assessment no matter how much it hurts to believe in that.
@@canicetang8837 1990 Mclaren 6 wins to Ferrari 6 wins. Mclaren won the Constructors by 11 points. Cesare Fiorio claims the Ferrari was the best car in 1990. What is obvious that year was the Mclaren suited some tracks and the Ferrari suited others. To claim the Mclaren was dominant in 1990 is rubbish. Same goes for 1991. Mclaren 8 wins to Williams 7 wins. Should have been 8 - 8 only for Mansell in Canada. Mclaren won the Constructors by 14 points after Mansell blowing Canada, Williams blowing Portugal and Mansell blowing Japan. Mansell dropped enough points in 1991 from issues unrelated to reliability to have won the drivers championship. To say that the Mclaren was dominant in 1991 is rubbish.
@@canicetang8837 , the cars in the 80s usually broke a lot, the mechanics was unreliable... There are many races that Senna had the poliposition and could not finish... He was a great driver, held the poliposition Record for a long time with less races (more than 50 races difference) until Schumacher broke the Record... To this day He hold the Record of Victories in Monaco...
Thank you Eddie for the first person to say that the steering column broke on Senna's Williams. It so obvious from the in-car footage and also why would such a talented driver drove straight on in a wall. Its because he did not have control over the car anymore. Yet this has never been proven. Even Damon Hill did a documentary on it and in the end he says that it will never be known what happened and that he doesn't think it was the steering column.
It’s in Neweys book that he slimmed the diameter of the column down to make more room. Senna was very cramped in the tiny cockpit and the fia dictated the gap between the drivers legs and the wheel. It’s strange that senna didn’t like the cockpit because all the other drivers didn’t seem to mind. Never heard Prost or mansell/ Patrese complain about that aspect.
Great to see the wikipedia historians criticizing the opinion of a man that on a day to day basis worked with and watched these great drivers in the flesh
@@kloijhi no jean todt asked barrichello "rubens let michael pass for championship" or something along the lines. If it wasnt for barrichello acting up he should have let him pass couple of laps earlier but Rubens wanted to play victim. It was stupid move on ferraris part but Rubens signed a contract just days prior and he did know what he was signing up for. Michael repayed rubens with more than he got from him.
There's a very clear cut here just after Eddie says "I was the biggest blagger on earth" lol. Wonder what little gems got removed there that we aren't allowed to hear :P
What about when Prost did not like when Senna was his team mate? I think they are all the best. I do agree I dont like that Michael has these things in his contracts.
Interviewer did a great job and Jordan is captivating to listen to. Some of Jordan's comments about Prost are confusing, especially the idea that Prost did not care who his team mate was. The Senna film told us that Prost only agreed to sign for Williams on the condition that Senna would not be his teammate. See ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-otOgyL8zSfY.html
Prost had his ways of dealing with politics in Formula 1 which was both cunning and smart. Also he was very honest in rating his teammates. It was his quiet nature that he didn't say much, but true to his name 'The Professor', he was extremely observant and giving back the feedback that engineers loved. He had a great variety of teammates. From learning the ropes with John Watson in a tough Mclaren team in 1980. Being competitive with Arnoux who screwed him of the French GP victory in 1982. He was very complementary to Eddie Cheever in 1983. The best teammate probably would be Lauda in a harmonious environment battling each other in 1984 so close of the title and winning it outright in 1985. Keke got along well with him in 1986. Stefan was in tough in 1987 and he wasn't as proven as the hype he got from Ferrari. We all knew about Senna in 1988 and 1989 so no need to mention the greatest epic fight within teammates at a super team. Nigel's character didn't like two top dogs at Ferrari in 1990 the same as when he fought Nelson in 1986 and 1987 in Williams. Both 1991 and 1993, Alesi and Damon were still young in their careers. Alain helped whenever he was asked to. The Williams contract was signed by Prost long ago. Nigel left in a huff because he didn't want to be beaten by Prost in 1993 as a defending World Champion. Also the 'No Senna' Clause was there because of the bad blood in their Mclaren Years.
18:48 - Alain Prost became a 4 time champion only because he drove in the fastest car in F1 - McLaren and later Williams. Prost was clearly slower than Senna, look at their lap times when they drove on the same car 88-89. In 80-90% of the time Senna had clearly faster lap times.
Michael may have demanded no1 status....but you cant demand that without having the CV to back it up . If you were the team boss you would surely give the man no 1 status no doubt. People forget any driver could demand no 1 status but for the team to give him that it would have to be really merited
Yes, people didn't know half of the story about Lewis would always put sour grapes on him. Before Lewis was signed by Ron. He was racing his kart with inferior equipment so bad that most wouldn't even considered as trash. Lewis won consecutive championships with fourth rated stuffs on the ladder. You really should watch some of Lewis' old kart races where he won starting from the 'end' of the grid. Kart races are short and some of his incredible moves are still being talked about in the UK kart circuits today. Plus his patterned 'late braking' made him stood out from the rest. That's why Ron took up on him. Remember, he beat a two times defending World Champion in Fernando as teammate and just missing out being a Rookie World Champion by a strategy error in Shanghai 2007. Sure, he has the one of the best cars on the grid. But the way he approached to racing, plus the different tactics and skills driving the car regardless of the conditions, is probably second to none, other than Fangio.
19:50 all other champions did the same, not only Schumacher. The second one in the team had to let the team leader pass. Schumacher did not invented that, he just copied Prost, Mansell, Senna etc.
This has no basis. This was an "accusation"* liarly invented by the ultra-envious and prejudiced Nelson Piquet who envied Senna's grandeur in Brazil while he was duly forgotten. Piquet used to make up false accusations of marital betrayal by the other pilots and speak ill of their wives etc. He kept saying in the press that Mansell's wife was "very ugly" and so on, distracting her unnecessarily. That's why Nelson doesn't even have 0.5% of Ayrton's recognition in Brazil, he never accepted his rival's greatest talent, charisma and professionalism. * For Piquet this was a demerit and he thought he could diminish Senna's prestige and damage his career with this public "accusation" through the press.
No resentment to Shumacher, first losing a court case over his contract to drive for Benetton and secondly buying out Ralf's contract for 2 million, go on ya good thing eddie.
Exactly! Senna turned 65 in just ten full seasons (dying at the peak of his performance, proving beyond doubt that he was the best at pure speed), not always with the best equipment, in the Golden Age (most talented in F1 history). Has anyone else done this? Testimony is from Gordon Murray, an engineer who formed the legendary partnership with Nelson Piquet at Brabham (1979-85) and who shared the pits with Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost at McLaren (1988-89). “I think psychologically Ayrton had the strongest blow, really, because he was a very profound thinker, Ayrton. And psychologically he would start qualifying training or running at a higher mental level (...) He was fast, but I think the best way to describe him is to say that he was the most complete driver. You can be fast, and still not win many races. Because you are not able to interpret engineering, you tend to make mistakes, for example ... Or you are fast some days and not so fast the other days ... I worked with many pilots who are only fast when everything is perfect . And if something is not the way they like it, they can't make it. And Ayrton was never like that. He was fast under almost any circumstances, because he thought about everything, he adapted to the circumstances, or he worked with the team to improve the car (...) He integrated well with the team, his feedback to the engineers was very good, and he was very careful with the mechanics of the cars. Very good in controlling the wear of tires, car, engine and gearbox. And this is what I call a complete pilot. And he was fast, too, of course. He was certainly the most complete driver I worked with, and that really was the reason he was so successful. "In other words, any other opinion of anyone who has not seen Senna up close, has no value or credibility at all.
Senna was of course bloody fast. But being the fastest in one lap doesn't mean jack squat if you are not the first at the checkered flag. What counts more? Victories or Poles? All drivers will choose winning, don't you think? Senna had 65 poles and 41 wins. Lewis currently has 88 poles and 84 wins. Who knows? At this rate. Lewis might be the first one to be 100 of each before his career will be done.
@@canicetang8837 In just two years, Senna sat in dominant cars, and played only 10 full seasons; very different from Hamilton (who disputes more races a year), besides the quality of each one's rivals being quite different (Ayrton picked up legends). Oh, and for English, Senna was the greatest. In pure speed and natural talent, certainly no one can compare to the Brazilian, so much so that Gordon Murray, engineer who formed the legendary partnership with Nelson Piquet at Brabham (1979-85) and who shared the pits with Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost at McLaren (1988 -89): “I think that psychologically Ayrton had the strongest blow, really, because he was a very profound thinker, Ayrton. And psychologically he would start qualifying training or running at a higher mental level (...) He was fast, but I think the best way to describe him is to say that he was the most complete driver. You can be fast, and still not win many races. Because you are not able to interpret engineering, you tend to make mistakes, for example ... Or you are fast some days and not so fast the other days ... I worked with many pilots who are only fast when everything is perfect . And if something is not the way they like it, they can't make it. And Ayrton was never like that. He was fast under almost any circumstances, because he thought about everything, he adapted to the circumstances, or he worked with the team to improve the car (...) He integrated well with the team, his feedback to the engineers was very good, and he was very careful with the mechanics of the cars. Very good in controlling the wear of tires, car, engine and gearbox. And this is what I call a complete pilot. And he was fast, too, of course. He was certainly the most complete driver I worked with, and that really was the reason he was so successful ". Anyway, and there are so many other great professionals with the same opinion, and we mere mortals do not need to argue about this anymore that, but just accepting that Senna is often recognized with the greatest of all in serious research on the subject - and between them and us, it goes without saying who has authority and reason.
Prost didn't want to compete with Senna on level terms in 1993 with Williams. He organised a contract that forbid Williams to sign Ayrton for the 1993 season. This is not what Champions do. Just like Schumacher set up his contracts that he had to choose his Number 2, just like Eddie says. Here is the video of Nigel Mansell in agreement with Ayrton. I would have Nigel above Alain. Nigel was robbed in Australia of his championship in '86. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uZlOIIIA3co.html
Good old Eddie speaking “his truth” 😂 which, as per usual, has absolutely bugger all to do with reality. Eddie you forgot to mention that you never paid your suppliers and constantly shafted them so it’s ironic to hear all the talk of “feeling responsible for them”. Come on Eddie it’s time jog on and enjoy your millions and leave our sport to get on without your inappropriate speculative comments on drivers sexuality.
Eddie forgot how Prost manipulated behind the scenes with Balestre, then with Ferrari when he took over Mansell's car, and of course his last contract with Williams where he not only blocked Senna but also Mansell. Eddie also forgot that eventhough Prost won in 89 but he only had 1 mechanical retirement vs Senna who were unlucky to have 4 mechanical retirements plus got hit twice thru no fault of his. I guess he is just too old already to remember things correctly. 🙂
Just let me remark that, when you come to highlight more frequent retirements by Senna you should take into account his driving style was pretty much a rough one when compared to Alain's style which was smoother and,telling it straight, wiser. Prost being focused on the final goal instead of the single race has often turned out to be a rewarding approach to F1-racing. Those who have a clue what car racing is are fully aware that winning isn't all about sheer speed. Referring to "politics" ...no question most of top drivers also were adamant in obtaining whatever was useful to them to get their goals.
@@INDIGOBLUE555 I never seen any real evidence to conclusively substantiate that the difference in driving styles between them constituted to the number of retirements. Therefore that is still just pure speculation, not fact. The number of retirement though is a fact and so does the number of times Senna finished ahead of Prost when both cars didn't have any issues in 88-89.
@@paulusrumanouw3176 I have no evidence of what kind of failures Senna suffered for,however back then,the driving style did actually affect the reliability of the car far more than in our days.No speculation,just a basic principle of car racing since its early days....Stressing your mechanic or brakes or tyres made you pay a price on the long term,however bad luck could also be playing a role... Jo Ramirez interviews can be of some help to get a wise insight of those years in McLaren.
@@INDIGOBLUE555 if no concrete evidence then it's still just theory, speculation, opinion, not truth nor fact. I'd rather rely on real facts, and the fact is Senna finished ahead of Prost more times when driving the same car in 88-89, and quite many of Prost wins only came after Senna suffered mechanical retirements while leading.
@@paulusrumanouw3176 You should be reading something on the matter and just get the point that,the driving style means something. This implies that Senna could have even win a few races in excess of what he did. I'm not talking of numbers,try and use your brain..you can make it ...Have a try :-) :-)
Anything Jordan talks about you have to take with a pinch of salt... or a cart. When he goes and talks about things and you see the factual errors that are supposed to support his statements you are quite... meh... Many factual errors. Yet, very impressed with what he achieved. Apparently being good on historical facts does not correlate with running an F1 team in the nineties.
Prost better than Senna, Schumacher more talented and Hamilton soon to be the greatest?! Eddie Jordan really should consider stand-up comedy as an alternative vocation......
Senna out-qualified Alain Prost, his McLaren teammate, by a margin of 1.427 seconds around the streets of Monte Carlo during 1988 quali. Yes, Prost was definitely the faster driver. :-)
Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost had the same equipment for 2 seasons. 32 races. Senna 14 wins and 26 pole positions. Prost 11 wins and 4 pole positions. Alain Prost used to pull out of races when it rained. Ayrton Senna was the Rain Master. Let there be no doubt. Alain Prost was not better than Ayrton Senna.
@@filipborin555 Prost was in a Championship contending car a lot more years than Ayrton. Fastest Laps would not be a reliable measure of a driver's ability for most if not all people. They had identical cars for 2 seasons. A fair measurement.
I see Senna more as a fanatic and Prost more as a cold, calculated guy. Senna was faster then Prost, there is no debate, but the despicable way he turned McLaren only on his side and his fanatic and rebel way of doing things got the better of him. I feel for Prost because he was portrayed, and still is ,as a villain and Senna as an angel. Senna was no angel. Even if Imola 1994 wouldn't have happen, I'm pretty positive no happy ending for him.
In 1989 with the same car Prost beated him.And in 1990 or 1991 Prost was in highly incopetitive car.Futhermore back in the days when both are in Mclaren the team used Honda but not TAG engines and Honda suported Senna because their teamwork in Lotus when Prost and Lauda competed with TAG/Porsche engines and TAG is a franchopone company registered in Switzerland.So in their Mclaren's period, Honda supported Sena.
Yep, Prost beat him in 1989, although the point system was like it was, and he could be faster sometimes. My impression is that Prost was not faster on one lap, he always seems to think on the longer game, how to preserve the car and minimise the risk in order to reach the chequered flag on the highest position possible. Prost also understood the written and unwritten rules of the sport. In 1984 he lost the championship to Lauda, he had a respectful attitude, I think Lauda praised that in an interview, and knew that his time will come.
Jesus Eddie! Senna did not have the steering column altered the night before Imola 94! And in any event once a driver requests the cockpit or steering column to be altered it should be done professionally Gavin Fisher shouldn’t have poorly welded to different diameter tubes to lengthen the steering column! It should have been a brand new column Please stop talking rubbish
Imagine if a female driver was put in the same team as Schumacher and she was presented with a contract such as that he should of been out of it long before the 2000 era.
Im really not surprised his in the condition he is today now the things he used to do. Why did u give him the opportunity to drive Eddie did u not get any references on his previous employer.
Who was the most overwhelming in history in the formula and single seater categories, competing against the main great new talents of his time, before F1 - Formula Ford 1600 (1,981): 12 victories (20 races) - Formula Ford 2000 (1,982): 14 wins (19 races) - English Formula 3 (1,983): 12 wins (20 races)? Who beat 9 world champions with mechanically identical cars (Nurburgring - 84)? Who was avant-garde and ushered in the era of super pilots with a focus on fitness? Who gave a show never seen with a Toleman (less car than Mclaren, Williams, Ferrari, Brabham, Renault, Tyrrell), in a challenging street circuit and with wet track, surpassing a legend (Lauda) with champion equipment of that year? Who often did poles (did 8 in 16 stages, in 1,985) and beat decadent Lotus (surely the fourth force on the grid at the time, behind Mclaren, Williams, Ferrari), in the most talented era in F1 history, something that Mansell before and neither did Piquet afterwards, defending the English team? Who did we see taking a ride on the rival and companion of the quality of Prost (legend and two-time champion - the driver to be beaten at the time and protected by the system), with the same car, in less than twenty laps, in the British GP of 1988? Still in 88, in Suzuka, who lost the lead of the race at the start, due to car problems, falling to the 12th or 14th position, and went to seek victory over leader Alain, with the same car? Who put more than 1.5s. in that same French rider who is among the greatest of all time, in the classification in Monaco 88, 1.7s. in training at Suzuka 89, and more than 1s. on several other occasions, with the same equipment? Who did we see hitting the track, on circuits where the arm protrudes, cars from another planet, almost two seconds faster, more dominant than the Mercedes of recent years, guarded to due proportions, with its biggest rival flying such a ship? Who haunted the world, once again, making the biggest lap in F1 history, on a circuit where the critics of the time said there were no overtaking points? And all of this with politics openly favoring and privileging Europeans. It is for these and so many other feats never seen that Senna is considered the greatest of all time, and deserves more respect. Anyway, Ayrton Senna da Silva continues to be the greatest of all time, thus elected by the overwhelming majority of ex-pilots (rivals and companions), pilots, engineers, journalists and specialists, being usually a parameter of comparison (although honorable for those who are compared, although inadequate, because the greatest of all cannot be compared and incomparable - not least because no one has ever come close to his exploits and extraordinary achievements) when a new great talent appears. Therefore, any contrary opinion is, at the very least, senseless and lacking in intelligence. Senna remains The Goat!
@@ferafera2831 just writing a paragraph doesn't make it a fact, anyone with free time can do it. There are plenty of articles, short documentaries and videos online which says otherwise. Your comment says itself, GOAT is someone who has achieved what no one has. Your beloved Senna or other racers never went to a struggling team and made it into a championship dominating team. Lol. Keep writing essays.
@@cranky1812 Everything I wrote is committed to the truth, and whether to accept the facts or not is an individual problem. Gordon Murray, engineer who formed the legendary partnership with Nelson Piquet at Brabham (1979-85) and who shared the pits with Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost at McLaren (1988-89): “I think psychologically Ayrton had the strongest blow, really, because he was a very deep thinker, Ayrton. And psychologically he would start qualifying training or running at a higher mental level (...) He was fast, but I think the best way to describe him is to say that he was the most complete driver. You can be fast, and still not win many races. Because you are not able to interpret engineering, you tend to make mistakes, for example ... Or you are fast some days and not so fast the other days ... I worked with many pilots who are only fast when everything is perfect . And if something is not the way they like it, they can't make it. And Ayrton was never like that. He was fast under almost any circumstances, because he thought about everything, he adapted to the circumstances, or he worked with the team to improve the car (...) He integrated well with the team, his feedback to the engineers was very good, and he was very careful with the mechanics of the cars. Very good in controlling the wear of tires, car, engine and gearbox. And this is what I call a complete pilot. And he was fast, too, of course. He was certainly the most complete driver I worked with, and that really was the reason he was so successful. "Anyway, going against arguments that sports professionals say was never smart. And that is a laughing matter. While you have not shown any contrary argument and have a problem with Senna, he remains in the highest position in the Pantheon of Champions.
@@ferafera2831 whatever you have written is applicable to few drivers as well. When it comes to complete driver then no one is like Michael and there is plenty of proof online. I am sure you will find tonnes about Michael. I don't hate Senna or any other racer.
Senna and mansell were the fastest with prost normally behind them waiting for them to smash lumps out of one another so there cars would brake down or take each other off cuz they were flat out 💯 with one another then prost would pass to take the victory. That happened time and time again. Prost was definitely the smartest driver but no way was he the quickest or best.
