Lewis Hamilton (Vol. 2)
Discussion
DOCG said:
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.
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).
Schumacher didn't see which way he went. 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).
Europa1 said:
Was 2007 best car? My recollection is of the steady McLaren implosion, with Alonso and Hamilton taking points off each other and allowing Kimi to come through the middle.
Yes, McLaren convincingly 'won' the WCC before being excluded over Spygate. Had they supported one of their drivers over the other then they'd have easily won the WDC as well.Also from that list, McLaren did not have the best car in 99 for Hakinnen. He was aided greatly by his main rival missing seven races with a broken leg, but still had the Ferrari number 2 driver push him all the way to the last race, and Ferrari still won the WCC ahead of McLaren.
Graveworm said:
DOCG said:
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.
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).
Schumacher didn't see which way he went. 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).
DOCG said:
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).
Rosberg managed to squeeze one yeah ahead out of three from Hamilton. As you remember I'm sure, Lewis had a lot of car issues that year and also made some poor starts. I also think you possibly underrate Rosberg. He was clearly no consistent match for Hamilton, but there's no shame in that. He managed to get that title, with the rub of the green, certainly, but it is still a mighty achievement that wrecked him physically and mentally.Another reason one year went down to the last race was because we have that ridiculous 'double points' situation. In any other circumstances, IE, in any other year in the sport's history, Hamilton would have already won the title.
I disagree regarding pre-F1 careers not being a useful greatness indicator. By the very nature of F1, we often can find more evidence of a driver's talents by going back and looking at formulae where the cars are equal. Take a look at Hamilton's career when he had equal equipment. It's outstanding.
Graveworm said:
Graveworm said:
DOCG said:
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.
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).
Schumacher didn't see which way he went. 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).
IMO, one of several question marks hanging over Schumacher is his abject failure to equal or beat Rosberg in the same car for 3 years.
paulguitar said:
Another reason one year went down to the last race was because we have that ridiculous 'double points' situation. In any other circumstances, IE, in any other year in the sport's history, Hamilton would have already won the title.
Not true, although Rosberg would have needed Hamilton to have some sort of mishap. There were only seventeen points between them going into the last race, so a Rosberg win with Ham no higher than seventh would have sent the title the other way without double points.thegreenhell said:
paulguitar said:
Another reason one year went down to the last race was because we have that ridiculous 'double points' situation. In any other circumstances, IE, in any other year in the sport's history, Hamilton would have already won the title.
Not true, although Rosberg would have needed Hamilton to have some sort of mishap. There were only seventeen points between them going into the last race, so a Rosberg win with Ham no higher than seventh would have sent the title the other way without double points.
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.
Would we consider Fangio as much of a great if he hadn’t won 5 world titles? His 5 titles may be worth more than 5 titles now, but they are still a measure.
My point is that if (and it’s a big if) Hamilton beats all records in the sport and you don’t consider him in the pantheon of greats, then that is to ignore an indicator of greatness. It doesn’t automatically mean he’s the greatest or better than another great driver, but it means he should be considered.
paulguitar said:
Rosberg managed to squeeze one yeah ahead out of three from Hamilton. As you remember I'm sure, Lewis had a lot of car issues that year and also made some poor starts. I also think you possibly underrate Rosberg. He was clearly no consistent match for Hamilton, but there's no shame in that. He managed to get that title, with the rub of the green, certainly, but it is still a mighty achievement that wrecked him physically and mentally.
Another reason one year went down to the last race was because we have that ridiculous 'double points' situation. In any other circumstances, IE, in any other year in the sport's history, Hamilton would have already won the title.
I disagree regarding pre-F1 careers not being a useful greatness indicator. By the very nature of F1, we often can find more evidence of a driver's talents by going back and looking at formulae where the cars are equal. Take a look at Hamilton's career when he had equal equipment. It's outstanding.
One out of three (and another close defeat) would be a tremendous success if Hamilton is one of the greats. In my opinion you are coming up with a lot of excuses and spin as to why Rosberg was so close to Hamilton over the 4 year period, gutting the luck, trying so hard that it wrecked harmed his mental and physical state. 2013 was also a very close season between them. Luck would surely even out over a 4 yeas span. And btw Lewis only had one more retirement in 2016.Another reason one year went down to the last race was because we have that ridiculous 'double points' situation. In any other circumstances, IE, in any other year in the sport's history, Hamilton would have already won the title.
I disagree regarding pre-F1 careers not being a useful greatness indicator. By the very nature of F1, we often can find more evidence of a driver's talents by going back and looking at formulae where the cars are equal. Take a look at Hamilton's career when he had equal equipment. It's outstanding.
Lewis won the rivalry by 1334 points to 1195 which shows that he was better but not by all that much. Hamilton only had one more DNF than Rosberg over the 3 years.
As to pre-F1 careers, I don't know how they can indicate greatness when they are only the beginning of ones career arc, surely Hamilton is a far better driver now than he was in 2005. I think every long-term F1 driver reaches a much better standard than his level during the junior career.
DOCG said:
Lewis won the rivalry by 1334 points to 1195 which shows that he was better but not by all that much. Hamilton only had one more DNF than Rosberg over the 3 years.
We don't count the total points over four years in F1. The score is 3/1.I think it's fair to say that if you watched F1 for all of that time they were teammates, Hamilton was quite clearly a better driver all round and a far better racer than Rosberg.
DOCG said:
As to pre-F1 careers, I don't know how they can indicate greatness when they are only the beginning of ones career arc, surely Hamilton is a far better driver now than he was in 2005. I think every long-term F1 driver reaches a much better standard than his level during the junior career.
The reason this is so handy is that we can see what they were like in equal machinery. Hamilton was quite clearly a driver of mesmerizing talent since he was doing cadet karts. He's managed to get better and better over the course of close to three decades since then. We're witnessing true sporting greatness.Muzzer79 said:
Statistics are in no way the only measure, but they are a factor, otherwise we only have subjective information to work from.
Would we consider Fangio as much of a great if he hadn’t won 5 world titles? His 5 titles may be worth more than 5 titles now, but they are still a measure.
My point is that if (and it’s a big if) Hamilton beats all records in the sport and you don’t consider him in the pantheon of greats, then that is to ignore an indicator of greatness. It doesn’t automatically mean he’s the greatest or better than another great driver, but it means he should be considered.
Stirling Moss: a greater talent than Sebastian Vettel.Would we consider Fangio as much of a great if he hadn’t won 5 world titles? His 5 titles may be worth more than 5 titles now, but they are still a measure.
My point is that if (and it’s a big if) Hamilton beats all records in the sport and you don’t consider him in the pantheon of greats, then that is to ignore an indicator of greatness. It doesn’t automatically mean he’s the greatest or better than another great driver, but it means he should be considered.
sparta6 said:
Muzzer79 said:
Statistics are in no way the only measure, but they are a factor, otherwise we only have subjective information to work from.
Would we consider Fangio as much of a great if he hadn’t won 5 world titles? His 5 titles may be worth more than 5 titles now, but they are still a measure.
My point is that if (and it’s a big if) Hamilton beats all records in the sport and you don’t consider him in the pantheon of greats, then that is to ignore an indicator of greatness. It doesn’t automatically mean he’s the greatest or better than another great driver, but it means he should be considered.
Stirling Moss: a greater talent than Sebastian Vettel.Would we consider Fangio as much of a great if he hadn’t won 5 world titles? His 5 titles may be worth more than 5 titles now, but they are still a measure.
My point is that if (and it’s a big if) Hamilton beats all records in the sport and you don’t consider him in the pantheon of greats, then that is to ignore an indicator of greatness. It doesn’t automatically mean he’s the greatest or better than another great driver, but it means he should be considered.
Muzzer79 said:
Statistics are in no way the only measure
My point is that statistics are evidence of greatness. It's possible to be great with weaker stats, but I don't think it's right to not consider the (soon-to-be) most successful driver in the sport amongst the greats.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff