[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

I have to justify everything to you?

Here it's easy with some knowledge of the time.

Alain Prost is the best driver of all time. If he isn't, then who ever it is is only insignificantly better than him. That includes your superhero Hamilton and Jim Clark. Prost is the best barometer when comparing generations. Whatever he does, if it could be bettered, could not be much better.

In 93, with the benefit of 2 years development of the 15C (The car Mansell was supposed to drive in 92, but didn't bring it out because they did so well with the 14B), not having Mansell as team mate, but a green Damon Hill, he couldn't match Mansell stats or performance. In actual fact, the stats flatter Prost that year.

When Prost was beaten in 93, almost all the time he was genuinely beaten. In 92, with the possible exception of Canada, if it weren't for mechanical, non driving errors, Mansell would've won every race.

There's nothing Prost did in 93 that Mansell couldn't have done, and a number of things Mansell would've done that Prost didn't.

South Africa - Mansell would've beaten Prost off the line and been a munite up the road before Prost finally got past Senna.

Brazil - Mansell would not have ended up on the beach like Prost did and would've won.

Donington - Mansell would not have been flapping about with the tyres in changing conditions, he'd have been far more assertive and confident in the car. Senna would've put in one of the best drives of his career and been 30secs behind Mansell.

Monaco -Idk what happened at the start line for Prost, but it would not have happened with Mansell. Mansell wins.

The problem every driver in the history of motorsport has with the 14b/15C, is that they're driving a car intrinsically suited to Mansell. Its not a "neutral car". It's a similar problem Bottas has at MB, it's car for Hamilton to drive. At that level, it's a wild difference.

What on earth is any other driver going to do that's better than Prost in the 15C? Senna beat him to a championship scoring fewer points, so you can objectively scratch him off.

A post full of 'would have' 'could have' and 'should haves'..... This would have been done by Mansell. That wouldn't have been done by Mansell. Just supposition - because it didn't happen. It can only be your opinion, and fair enough. I fully appreciate and applaud the support that individuals give to their favourite, there's nothing wrong with that in my eyes at all but then justifying it with supposition just doesn't work.... It doesn't really matter (and by the way, neither Hamilton nor Clark are my 'superhero').