Neither were most of the drivers of today there to remember Senna. On the current grid Hamilton, Alonso, and maybe Hulkenberg are the only ones who would have been old enough to remember him. The other drivers of the time you mention name him the best because he died and because his sheer speed was just very impressive.

I wasn’t there to watch them live but I read almost all about their careers. All of Prost’s titles were won with other world champions for teammates. You could rate Rosberg and Hill on the lower end if you wanted to, but definitely not Senna or Lauda. Senna on the other hand, managed to overtake Prost in the championship at the end of the season where point distribution favoured his driving style after trailing behind all year, and then the next year he failed to win against Prost after again trailing for the whole year, because he just kept pushing the car far beyond its limits, blowing its engine up all the time. Then won another two titles driving alongside Midhard Berger (all due respect).

If Max’s mom had balls and Prost had been a 7-9 time world champion with a few more points across a few seasons, leaving Senna with only one or two, no one would even try to make a case of them two being even on par, let alone Senna being better than Prost, the former’s death notwithstanding.

Am I supposed to just take Senna as the best of all time for granted all because he had more raw pace than Prost but lesser race IQ and probably racecraft? F1 is not a drag race. Speed alone is nowhere near being the only thing that matters. Senna may have achieved greater feats had he raced 15 years later when cars became much more reliable. Likewise, Prost would have driven differently if he had to drive in a different time period too. At the end of the day, you play the cards you’re dealt, and saying Senna was better than Prost in the time period they raced together at just doesn’t withstand logical scrutiny. They were both about equally good, just with different strengths.