Lewis Hamilton (Vol. 2)
Discussion
neverlifted said:
kambites said:
Yeah but they were still a vasstly superior team, even discounting the drivers from the equation.
Agreed. At some races Ferrari were quicker across 2017-2019, but generally Mercedes was the quicker car and definitely the superior team (with better decision-making and reliability). BrettMRC said:
vdn said:
Killer2005 said:
paulguitar said:
DeltonaS said:
Hamilton is ranked No,1 because he's in the best car first and foremosty.
Try again, the ranking is based on driver performance, not car performance.Some questions for you, Deltona:
1. Why was Hamilton clearly better than the opposition in all junior formulae?
2. Why do the team managers, current drivers, and former drivers consistently rate Hamilton as the best?
3. Why does Mercedes keep Hamilton on as the highest salaried driver? Why not just employ someone else, for a load less money?
The silence speaks volumes
Did he possibly run in to him in a Jason Plato like setting and not get what he was after?
DeltonaS said:
paulguitar said:
TP321 said:
Max would destroy him in the same car...
Max is clearly a great talent, but saying Max would 'destroy' Hamilton is the same car demonstrates a significant ignorance and lack of understanding of the sport.But no, it just demonstrates a significant bias.
paulguitar said:
People who work in F1, rather than anonymous internet keyboard warriors, are fully aware of Hamilton's abilities. That's also why he has consistently ranked the number one driver by the team managers, year after year.
Hamilton has been an astonishing talent since he was in cadet karts. Everyone on the sport knew it from back then, and he's now homing in on pretty much every record in the book.
Hamilton is ranked No,1 because he's in the best car first and foremost, he won the WDC multiple times in the hybrid era. Historically seen an unprecedented era, Between 2009 and 2013, 5 years in a row, he didn't mange to get into the top 3 once. Back then Vettel was the chosen one.Hamilton has been an astonishing talent since he was in cadet karts. Everyone on the sport knew it from back then, and he's now homing in on pretty much every record in the book.
It's clear that Lucky Lewis is taking full advantage of the situation, Schumachers record, considered pretty much unbreakable is broken thanks to the hybrid era.
Hamilton was 22 when he entered F1, Max was 17 and still is only 22. Max broke records Hamilton never reached. And if it wasn't for the hybrid era, Max would've been world champion already.
What is your nationality, which driver do you think is the best one, and how did you manage to reach such an impartial and unbiased conclusion?
M5-911 said:
What your post highlights is how few very good drivers were on the starting line during Schumacher best years. He really had to fight 2 good drivers in his prime, Hakkinen and Alonso. He lost 2 to Hakkinen and 2 to Alonso. So basically, he got beaten fare and square.
I think that Brundle mentioned it in the past already.
this point doesn't get discussed IMHOI think that Brundle mentioned it in the past already.
when you look back at the history of F1 certain drivers stood apart more in those eras than current day....but if you look at those drivers, were they actually driving gods, or were they just better than the average gentlemen driver?
look back at Fangio and Clarks era...how many were into racing seriously, even in the 80s and 90s there were a lot of drivers in F1 just not up to the task.
These days drivers are analysed and trained to within an inch of their lives. No wonder the gaps between the good and greats are so much smaller these days.,
As Jenson said at the weekend, getting within half a second of your teammate is easy, its the last 2 tenths which is incredibly difficult.
M5-911 said:
Muzzer79 said:
Quite
Let's list the other drivers who have won the WDC and pick out the ones who weren't in the best car.
2016 - Rosberg - Best car
2010-2013 - Vettel - Best car
2009 - Button - Best car (well, for a big chunk of the year)
2007 - Raikkonen - Best car
2005-2006 - Alonso - Best car
2000-2004 - Schumacher - Best car
1998-1999 - Hakkinen - Best car
1997 - Villeneuve - Best car
1996 - Hill - Best car
1995 - Schumacher - 2nd best car
1994 - Schumacher - Best car
1993 - Prost - Best car
1992 - Mansell - Best car
1991 - Senna - Best car
"Best car" is obviously a subjective term but as a clear cut case it's only really Schumacher's '95 WDC that sticks out but, to counter that, I'd also say that Hamilton won in 2008 in not the best car.
Greatness is achieved by a combination of things - right-car-right-time, talent, professionalism, luck, team-work, relative competition, adaptability......I could go on.
Plenty of great drivers have not achieved as much without one or more of those things but the greatest have some of all of them, to varying degrees.
It will forever be debatable as to who was/is the best and I'm not his biggest fan but, with his stats, to not put Hamilton up there is ignorant.
What your post highlights is how few very good drivers were on the starting line during Schumacher best years. He really had to fight 2 good drivers in his prime, Hakkinen and Alonso. He lost 2 to Hakkinen and 2 to Alonso. So basically, he got beaten fare and square.Let's list the other drivers who have won the WDC and pick out the ones who weren't in the best car.
2016 - Rosberg - Best car
2010-2013 - Vettel - Best car
2009 - Button - Best car (well, for a big chunk of the year)
2007 - Raikkonen - Best car
2005-2006 - Alonso - Best car
2000-2004 - Schumacher - Best car
1998-1999 - Hakkinen - Best car
1997 - Villeneuve - Best car
1996 - Hill - Best car
1995 - Schumacher - 2nd best car
1994 - Schumacher - Best car
1993 - Prost - Best car
1992 - Mansell - Best car
1991 - Senna - Best car
"Best car" is obviously a subjective term but as a clear cut case it's only really Schumacher's '95 WDC that sticks out but, to counter that, I'd also say that Hamilton won in 2008 in not the best car.
Greatness is achieved by a combination of things - right-car-right-time, talent, professionalism, luck, team-work, relative competition, adaptability......I could go on.
Plenty of great drivers have not achieved as much without one or more of those things but the greatest have some of all of them, to varying degrees.
It will forever be debatable as to who was/is the best and I'm not his biggest fan but, with his stats, to not put Hamilton up there is ignorant.
I think that Brundle mentioned it in the past already.
Muzzer79 said:
Broadly agree, but I also think that Raikkonen was in the same category. Particularly, with better reliability, I think he would have won the 2005 WDC.
Even 2003 was possible. I think McLaren (might have been Martin Whitmarsh) have previously commented that they owe Kimi a WDC. F1GTRUeno said:
And crucially, at 22, Hamilton was fighting for the WDC in his first season in F1. Max is nowhere near is he? He's demonstrated that he's quick to a fine degree but Lewis still produces so many moments over a season of otherworldly brilliance that even in the same car he'd beat Max.
All that demonstrates is that Lewis had a car that was capable of winning the WDC in his first season (why McLaren failed is well documented elsewhere), and that Max has never been in one. Relative age is irrelevant.If they were teammates now then Max would beat Lewis often, as other drivers have, but probably not often enough to beat him to the title.
If Max and Lewis swapped cars now then Max would be odds on for the title, and it would be Lewis fighting to pick up the scraps.
thegreenhell said:
If they were teammates now then Max would beat Lewis often, as other drivers have, but probably not often enough to beat him to the title.
If Max and Lewis swapped cars now then Max would be odds on for the title, and it would be Lewis fighting to pick up the scraps.
Yup, I think Verstappen is the one driver on the grid at the moment who could seriously challenge Hamilton as his teammate. I've no idea which way such a fight would go - Hamilton argubly has better race craft (although Verstappen has come on leaps and bounds in the last couple of years), but I get the feeling Verstappen might have fractionally more outright pace. If Max and Lewis swapped cars now then Max would be odds on for the title, and it would be Lewis fighting to pick up the scraps.
There's other drivers who look like they might also have the speed, but they don't have the experience yet, which I suppose just shows that Redbull were right to offer Verstappen a way into F1 so young; he may not have been "ready" at the time but it gives him considerably more experience at the top level to call upon now that he is.
I think there's three or four young drivers on the grid now, who in any other era would have been capable of dominating the sport as they mature; the fact we have so many of them at once is a shame for them but fabulous for us.
Edited by kambites on Monday 3rd August 16:19
WickerBill said:
this point doesn't get discussed IMHO
when you look back at the history of F1 certain drivers stood apart more in those eras than current day....but if you look at those drivers, were they actually driving gods, or were they just better than the average gentlemen driver?
look back at Fangio and Clarks era...how many were into racing seriously, even in the 80s and 90s there were a lot of drivers in F1 just not up to the task.
These days drivers are analysed and trained to within an inch of their lives. No wonder the gaps between the good and greats are so much smaller these days.,
As Jenson said at the weekend, getting within half a second of your teammate is easy, its the last 2 tenths which is incredibly difficult.
A good post, but I think we still have some pretty average gentlemen drivers today whose wealthy parents have put them where they are. when you look back at the history of F1 certain drivers stood apart more in those eras than current day....but if you look at those drivers, were they actually driving gods, or were they just better than the average gentlemen driver?
look back at Fangio and Clarks era...how many were into racing seriously, even in the 80s and 90s there were a lot of drivers in F1 just not up to the task.
These days drivers are analysed and trained to within an inch of their lives. No wonder the gaps between the good and greats are so much smaller these days.,
As Jenson said at the weekend, getting within half a second of your teammate is easy, its the last 2 tenths which is incredibly difficult.
Blue62 said:
A good post, but I think we still have some pretty average gentlemen drivers today whose wealthy parents have put them where they are.
Given the finances involved in F1 I don't think we're doing too badly in that respect. Clearly many will have needed serious funds and/or contacts to get there and stay there, but that's a given (motorsport is expensive) for all but a couple of drivers picked up as kids anyway.Norris, Sainz, Russell, Leclerc, Grosjean, Ocon, Ricciardo, Gasly, Kyvat and Bottas all won major feeder series championships typically needed for an F1 seat. Whilst Stroll would presumably come under the 'money' category, he's backed that up with an F4 and F3 title on his way up.
Verstappen is an outlier but only because he was promoted so early. Add in a few 'old' champions (Vettel, Raikkonen) and that's at least 3/4 of the grid locked in with drivers you'd pretty much expect to be there absolutely on merit.
M5-911 said:
jimPH said:
So lewis had been pressurising his fellows into kneeling. I hope we don't see them all doing that.
Lewis has been "educating" I assume that means educating Communist doctrine where the BLM principals are founded.
O think these drivers should just get on with their day job.
Interesting comment. For me as a foreigner from a socialist country, I find it amusing that you are slaging off communism and using it as a playground insult knowyinlgy that the NHS system is basically based on the pure definition of communism and I am sure that you are proud of it. Lewis has been "educating" I assume that means educating Communist doctrine where the BLM principals are founded.
O think these drivers should just get on with their day job.
Communism:
noun
a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs
Muzzer79 said:
Quite
Let's list the other drivers who have won the WDC and pick out the ones who weren't in the best car.
2016 - Rosberg - Best car
2010-2013 - Vettel - Best car
2009 - Button - Best car (well, for a big chunk of the year)
2007 - Raikkonen - Best car
2005-2006 - Alonso - Best car
2000-2004 - Schumacher - Best car
1998-1999 - Hakkinen - Best car
1997 - Villeneuve - Best car
1996 - Hill - Best car
1995 - Schumacher - 2nd best car
1994 - Schumacher - Best car
1993 - Prost - Best car
1992 - Mansell - Best car
1991 - Senna - Best car
"Best car" is obviously a subjective term but as a clear cut case it's only really Schumacher's '95 WDC that sticks out but, to counter that, I'd also say that Hamilton won in 2008 in not the best car.
Greatness is achieved by a combination of things - right-car-right-time, talent, professionalism, luck, team-work, relative competition, adaptability......I could go on.
Plenty of great drivers have not achieved as much without one or more of those things but the greatest have some of all of them, to varying degrees.
It will forever be debatable as to who was/is the best and I'm not his biggest fan but, with his stats, to not put Hamilton up there is ignorant.
For the reasons you mentioned, stats are an incredibly poor way to determine "greatness" as they depend on so many other variables. Whether someone should be put up there or not should not depend on statistics. I don't think Hamilton has suddenly become a much better driver than he was in 2012 or 2013, therefore any argument for Hamilton being one of the greats should also apply to pre-Mercedes Hamilton. Statistics will not prove him to be the greatest no matter how many wins, poles, titles he gets against drivers with greatly inferior equipment. Let's list the other drivers who have won the WDC and pick out the ones who weren't in the best car.
2016 - Rosberg - Best car
2010-2013 - Vettel - Best car
2009 - Button - Best car (well, for a big chunk of the year)
2007 - Raikkonen - Best car
2005-2006 - Alonso - Best car
2000-2004 - Schumacher - Best car
1998-1999 - Hakkinen - Best car
1997 - Villeneuve - Best car
1996 - Hill - Best car
1995 - Schumacher - 2nd best car
1994 - Schumacher - Best car
1993 - Prost - Best car
1992 - Mansell - Best car
1991 - Senna - Best car
"Best car" is obviously a subjective term but as a clear cut case it's only really Schumacher's '95 WDC that sticks out but, to counter that, I'd also say that Hamilton won in 2008 in not the best car.
Greatness is achieved by a combination of things - right-car-right-time, talent, professionalism, luck, team-work, relative competition, adaptability......I could go on.
Plenty of great drivers have not achieved as much without one or more of those things but the greatest have some of all of them, to varying degrees.
It will forever be debatable as to who was/is the best and I'm not his biggest fan but, with his stats, to not put Hamilton up there is ignorant.
DOCG said:
For the reasons you mentioned, stats are an incredibly poor way to determine "greatness" as they depend on so many other variables. Whether someone should be put up there or not should not depend on statistics. I don't think Hamilton has suddenly become a much better driver than he was in 2012 or 2013, therefore any argument for Hamilton being one of the greats should also apply to pre-Mercedes Hamilton. Statistics will not prove him to be the greatest no matter how many wins, poles, titles he gets against drivers with greatly inferior equipment.
Well, if you actually look at Hamilton palamares before f1, he won everything in anything he entered, he finished ahead of the current world champion in his first year of F1 and won races and got poles every singles years of his racing life so far. Not sure I know a single f1 drivers with stats as good as that. That is the reason why from the moment he entered F1, he has always been in the spotlight. The expectation from the F1 world and pundits has always been huge on Hamilton due to his natural ability to drive any single seater to a victory at one stage or another. DOCG said:
For the reasons you mentioned, stats are an incredibly poor way to determine "greatness" as they depend on so many other variables. Whether someone should be put up there or not should not depend on statistics. I don't think Hamilton has suddenly become a much better driver than he was in 2012 or 2013
I think one of the most notable strengths of Hamilton is that he has continuously, relentlessly, worked on anything that could have been considered to be a weakness. The psychology side of things is very important to him, and he's made a huge effort to improve this in his time in F1.You are right that he has not 'suddenly become' a much better driver than he was in the McLaren years. He came in as a rookie who was able to regularly match and beat his 2-time WDC teammate. It's not possible to 'suddenly become' a much better driver when you start out at that elevated level. What's possible is learning from experience, and trying to reduce mistakes.
We can discuss this endlessly here, and I enjoy reading all of the contributions but the people from within the sport, those who worked with drivers such as Senna and Schumacher, the verdict is clear. They believe Hamilton ranks alongside anyone who has ever driven in F1.
DOCG said:
Muzzer79 said:
Quite
Let's list the other drivers who have won the WDC and pick out the ones who weren't in the best car.
2016 - Rosberg - Best car
2010-2013 - Vettel - Best car
2009 - Button - Best car (well, for a big chunk of the year)
2007 - Raikkonen - Best car
2005-2006 - Alonso - Best car
2000-2004 - Schumacher - Best car
1998-1999 - Hakkinen - Best car
1997 - Villeneuve - Best car
1996 - Hill - Best car
1995 - Schumacher - 2nd best car
1994 - Schumacher - Best car
1993 - Prost - Best car
1992 - Mansell - Best car
1991 - Senna - Best car
"Best car" is obviously a subjective term but as a clear cut case it's only really Schumacher's '95 WDC that sticks out but, to counter that, I'd also say that Hamilton won in 2008 in not the best car.
Greatness is achieved by a combination of things - right-car-right-time, talent, professionalism, luck, team-work, relative competition, adaptability......I could go on.
Plenty of great drivers have not achieved as much without one or more of those things but the greatest have some of all of them, to varying degrees.
It will forever be debatable as to who was/is the best and I'm not his biggest fan but, with his stats, to not put Hamilton up there is ignorant.
For the reasons you mentioned, stats are an incredibly poor way to determine "greatness" as they depend on so many other variables. Whether someone should be put up there or not should not depend on statistics. I don't think Hamilton has suddenly become a much better driver than he was in 2012 or 2013, therefore any argument for Hamilton being one of the greats should also apply to pre-Mercedes Hamilton. Statistics will not prove him to be the greatest no matter how many wins, poles, titles he gets against drivers with greatly inferior equipment. Let's list the other drivers who have won the WDC and pick out the ones who weren't in the best car.
2016 - Rosberg - Best car
2010-2013 - Vettel - Best car
2009 - Button - Best car (well, for a big chunk of the year)
2007 - Raikkonen - Best car
2005-2006 - Alonso - Best car
2000-2004 - Schumacher - Best car
1998-1999 - Hakkinen - Best car
1997 - Villeneuve - Best car
1996 - Hill - Best car
1995 - Schumacher - 2nd best car
1994 - Schumacher - Best car
1993 - Prost - Best car
1992 - Mansell - Best car
1991 - Senna - Best car
"Best car" is obviously a subjective term but as a clear cut case it's only really Schumacher's '95 WDC that sticks out but, to counter that, I'd also say that Hamilton won in 2008 in not the best car.
Greatness is achieved by a combination of things - right-car-right-time, talent, professionalism, luck, team-work, relative competition, adaptability......I could go on.
Plenty of great drivers have not achieved as much without one or more of those things but the greatest have some of all of them, to varying degrees.
It will forever be debatable as to who was/is the best and I'm not his biggest fan but, with his stats, to not put Hamilton up there is ignorant.
paulguitar said:
I think one of the most notable strengths of Hamilton is that he has continuously, relentlessly, worked on anything that could have been considered to be a weakness. The psychology side of things is very important to him, and he's made a huge effort to improve this in his time in F1.
You are right that he has not 'suddenly become' a much better driver than he was in the McLaren years. He came in as a rookie who was able to regularly match and beat his 2-time WDC teammate. It's not possible to 'suddenly become' a much better driver when you start out at that elevated level. What's possible is learning from experience, and trying to reduce mistakes.
We can discuss this endlessly here, and I enjoy reading all of the contributions but the people from within the sport, those who worked with drivers such as Senna and Schumacher, the verdict is clear. They believe Hamilton ranks alongside anyone who has ever driven in F1.
My main point is that his success with Mercedes (and therefore career statistics) neither proves nor disproves his greatness. It is a never ending argument though because there cannot be a definitive answer to a subjective question. Personally I put Hamilton on the same level as Hakkinen but with more longevity. You are right that he has not 'suddenly become' a much better driver than he was in the McLaren years. He came in as a rookie who was able to regularly match and beat his 2-time WDC teammate. It's not possible to 'suddenly become' a much better driver when you start out at that elevated level. What's possible is learning from experience, and trying to reduce mistakes.
We can discuss this endlessly here, and I enjoy reading all of the contributions but the people from within the sport, those who worked with drivers such as Senna and Schumacher, the verdict is clear. They believe Hamilton ranks alongside anyone who has ever driven in F1.
DOCG said:
My main point is that his success with Mercedes (and therefore career statistics) neither proves nor disproves his greatness. It is a never ending argument though because there cannot be a definitive answer to a subjective question. Personally I put Hamilton on the same level as Hakkinen but with more longevity.
Always an issue with F1. We could dismiss the success for Senna, Schumacher, Andretti, Prost etc on these terms. A couple of things we do have though are:1. His career before F1, which is still amongst the best ever.
2. The way he's rated by people who work in F1, who presumably know a lot more than we do.
M5-911 said:
Well, if you actually look at Hamilton palamares before f1, he won everything in anything he entered, he finished ahead of the current world champion in his first year of F1 and won races and got poles every singles years of his racing life so far. Not sure I know a single f1 drivers with stats as good as that. That is the reason why from the moment he entered F1, he has always been in the spotlight. The expectation from the F1 world and pundits has always been huge on Hamilton due to his natural ability to drive any single seater to a victory at one stage or another.
I don't value accomplishments prior to F1 very highly, the competition was clearly a lot weaker so I don't see it as relevant to F1 greatness. The legacy of the 2007 season is very disputed as the season was so controversial, Alonso was not even on speaking terms with the team in the latter part of the season, it was clear that the team were fully backing Hamilton in the second half of the season so one could easily argue Hamilton had the advantage (btw they finished level on points).
He has not always been in the spotlight, he was fairly quiet in his later years at McLaren.
paulguitar said:
Always an issue with F1. We could dismiss the success for Senna, Schumacher, Andretti, Prost etc on these terms. A couple of things we do have though are:
1. His career before F1, which is still amongst the best ever.
2. The way he's rated by people who work in F1, who presumably know a lot more than we do.
Success and greatness should not be confused. Success is the combinations or many things but driving ability is only one factor. Success doesn't automatically equate to greatness, no one would argue that Rosberg's successful WC would make him a top driver. 1. His career before F1, which is still amongst the best ever.
2. The way he's rated by people who work in F1, who presumably know a lot more than we do.
In my opinion one of the biggest arguments against Hamilton's success is that two out of three seasons with Rosberg were very close and went to the final round (partly because I consider Rosberg as a very average driver).
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff