Just one more Fan

This space isn’t for fueling hate or debating dark theories disguised as morality.

If someone wants to talk about motorsport, history, narrative, or philosophy—welcome.

Ayrton Senna was an imperfect driver. You can (and should) criticize his aggression, his clashes with Prost, or his mystique. But lately I've seen "critical" arguments that fall into the same exaggerations as blind fans — just in the opposite direction.

Here are four recurring arguments, broken down with actual data and historical context.

"Senna blackmailed Ron Dennis with absurd demands. He asked for $1 million per race, threatened not to race, and even would take hostages"

In 1992–1993, Ron Dennis deceived Senna. He promised a competitive chassis, but during testing he gave Senna the heavier 1989 MP4/5 instead of the MP4/6 he had requested. The goal was to pressure Senna into signing quickly.

When Senna discovered the deception, he used his leverage as a three-time world champion. And it worked: he secured a contract worth $1 million per race in 1993. That wasn't a tantrum—it was the market rate for a top driver at a time when drivers had far less power than today.

"Senna was willing to drive for Williams for free—how pathetic It shows weakness or lack of self-respect."

Senna never raced for free. His 1994 Williams contract was worth $1.5 million per race.

The "free driving" story comes from a conditional offer he made while still at McLaren: "If the Williams car is championship-winning, I'll drive without a salary." That's not weakness. That's prioritizing titles over money. A statement that his motivation wasn't cash—it was winning. How many current drivers would say the same?

"Senna isn't a GOAT because he only won titles with one team (McLaren). Prost and Schumacher won with multiple teams."

Let's check raw data:

Prost: 13 full seasons (1980–1993). Titles with McLaren and Williams.

Schumacher: 19 full seasons (1991–2012). Titles with Benetton and Ferrari.

Senna: 9 full seasons (1984–1994, cut short).

Titles only with McLaren… because he died in his first year with Williams.

Senna was on his way to fighting for the title with a new team. Death prevented him from completing the process of becoming a "multi-team champion."

Comparing raw career totals without adjusting for time is a fallacy. If Prost had died in 1987, he'd have 2 titles (both with McLaren). If Schumacher had died in 1997, he'd have 2 titles (Benetton only). The logic is rigged.

It's not that Senna "couldn't" win with another team. It's that he ran out of time.

"He's not that great because he only won three championships. Schumacher beat him in '94."

Problems with this argument is Senna was leading the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix when he crashed. Schumacher inherited the lead after the red flag.·

If we apply the same logic to other sports:

Is Bruce Lee not a martial arts legend because he died young?

Is Jim Morrison not a great rocker because he died at the age of 27?

The "what if" isn't cheap mythology. It's simply the reality that a career was cut short before its time. That doesn't artificially inflate Senna—it just prevents us from knowing what more he would have achieved.

Using death as a statistical argument is logically invalid. You cannot penalize someone for failing to do what death prevented them from doing.