Lewis Hamilton G.O.A.T. ?

[Northernboy]

Maximus_Meridius101 said:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/motorsport/12866166...

I think this nails it, just not the order of greatness in the infographic, on the page. I can’t really comment on any drivers I never saw race either. If I base my ‘order of greatness’ on anything, I must have seen the driver compete, in real life. But for me, I agree with Sir Jackie, that I wouldn’t put Hamilton in my top 3.

Not for the same reasons as him I hope. Sir Jackie seems to have a real issue with Hamilton that he doesn’t have with any of the others.

[Derek Smith]

paulguitar said:

Hungrymc said:

Not sure it’s worthwhile trying to decide who is the GOAT as it’s impossible to compare across eras. I often think it takes some very different attributes to be at the top today in an age of ultra professionalism compared to the less professional past. Is quite possible none would shine in a different period.

But to argue that Lewis is not right up there and in the mix with the very best is a bit odd too.

Agreed, it's impossible. But I think it is possible to suggest without fear of contradiction that Lewis Hamilton in any era would have been a gamechanger, a mighty force...

I agree. Comparisons are useless. Prejudice alwasy comes in. 'It was better in my time', 'Senna was superman', 'Even my mum knows Hamilton's useless'.

I think natural talent always stands out, but even then, it is the ability to get the best out of specific regs, specific types of cars, etc.

I think one of the most naturally talented drivers I've seen was Piquet (snr of course) but he was weak in certain areas. Alonso was more or less (a bit less I think) the same. Oddles of talent, but didn't win as many WDCs as they could/should have done. Clark - the first driver I was a fan of - was gifted rather than talented. I don't think I've ever seen his like. Then there was Senna; a confusing man whose dark side should not be allowed to overshadow his remarkable abilities.

How on Earth can you compare them on an 'all time' basis? Well, you can't.

What about those drivers without obvious natural ability who overcame it to win races; lots of them. I don't know if many have seen Hill snr drive, but the first phrase that came to my mind was not naturally gifted. The same with Mansell. Does that make them better for their achievement, against the odds, not to mention predictions?

Hamilton is remarkable. I don't think he's as naturally talented as Cark, Piquet, Alonso. etc, but his overall ability, especially to learn from his mistakes, probably his most remarkable attribute given the conceit needed to be an F1 driver.

I started watching F1 in 1966. My first GP was the British at Brands. I've followed it, nerd like, since then, with a brief break after the infamous Imola race. Even so, I have no idea who's the greatest. While stats alone aren't enough, Hamilton's are all but overwhelming.

But, come on. Hamilton not up there on a level, at least, with the greatest? Because of his teammate? Because he's in the best car? I mean, who wasn't in modern times?

The question is nonsense in effect.

Let's just put that to one side and enjoy the bloke driving. Yesterday was sublime. Not in the best car for a change, yet he, together with inspired team tactics, got the job done. It was magic. It was overwhelming. Being apprently resentful because it wasn't your man winning is not really the F1 way (speaking as a decades long McLaren fan, I know all about not winning).

Enjoy the racing.

[WickerBill]

Northernboy said:

Maximus_Meridius101 said:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/motorsport/12866166...

I think this nails it, just not the order of greatness in the infographic, on the page. I can’t really comment on any drivers I never saw race either. If I base my ‘order of greatness’ on anything, I must have seen the driver compete, in real life. But for me, I agree with Sir Jackie, that I wouldn’t put Hamilton in my top 3.

Not for the same reasons as him I hope. Sir Jackie seems to have a real issue with Hamilton that he doesn’t have with any of the others.

Slow news day for the sun. Instead of congratulating Lewis, they are regurgitating 6 month old quotes from a guy who has always had a chip on his shoulder

[rscott]

Maximus_Meridius101 said:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/motorsport/12866166...

I think this nails it, just not the order of greatness in the infographic, on the page. I can’t really comment on any drivers I never saw race either. If I base my ‘order of greatness’ on anything, I must have seen the driver compete, in real life. But for me, I agree with Sir Jackie, that I wouldn’t put Hamilton in my top 3.

When Stewart claims Hamilton has a better car AND ENGINE than the other teams, it's pretty clear he's not basing his comments on reality.

[DanL]

Maximus_Meridius101 said:

https://talksport.com/sport/motorsport/856685/lewi...

Especially when the opposition is ordered to let him win.

Ordered to return a place, not let him win. You can argue whether that decision was fair or not...

[JNW1]

Northernboy said:

JNW1 said:

Depends on the point you're trying to make? I wouldn't disagree that, generally, the drivers of today are fitter and and more focused than their counterparts of 40 or 50 years ago and to that extent they're better; however, IMO that doesn't mean they're more talented, it just means they're a product of different standards associated with a different era. I refer you to my Novak Djokovic/Rod Laver comparison in my previous post - different sport but the principle's the same!

But the question is who is the best driver, not who is the most talented. There are going to be thousands of people with more talent than any of the former champions if you want to go down that route who’ve never sat in a racing car.

No, the best means who was best at racing cars, and that is a combination of talent and application.

I agree there are probably more talented people who've never sat in a car but you can only attempt to judge those who have!

But if you accept your assertion that the best at racing cars is down to a combination of talent and application, how are you judging the talent part of that equation? Trying to do it across eras is (IMO) a mug's game because there are simply too many variables; the cars, the data available to help analyse and improve performance, the different circuits, the different fitness regimes for the drivers, etc. All those things have changed over time - massively so compared to when (say) the likes of Jim Clark was racing - so how exactly do you determine which drivers are/were the most talented? The answer is you can't - at least not in any objective way - which is why I think comparisons across eras are meaningless; you can judge racing drivers (and indeed sportspeople generally) against their peers but going beyond that is, as I said earlier, nothing more than opinion and speculation. None of which alters my opinion that Hamilton is a top class driver!

[JNW1]

Derek Smith said:

paulguitar said:

Hungrymc said:

Not sure it’s worthwhile trying to decide who is the GOAT as it’s impossible to compare across eras. I often think it takes some very different attributes to be at the top today in an age of ultra professionalism compared to the less professional past. Is quite possible none would shine in a different period.

But to argue that Lewis is not right up there and in the mix with the very best is a bit odd too.

Agreed, it's impossible. But I think it is possible to suggest without fear of contradiction that Lewis Hamilton in any era would have been a gamechanger, a mighty force...

I agree. Comparisons are useless. Prejudice alwasy comes in. 'It was better in my time', 'Senna was superman', 'Even my mum knows Hamilton's useless'.

I think natural talent always stands out, but even then, it is the ability to get the best out of specific regs, specific types of cars, etc.

I think one of the most naturally talented drivers I've seen was Piquet (snr of course) but he was weak in certain areas. Alonso was more or less (a bit less I think) the same. Oddles of talent, but didn't win as many WDCs as they could/should have done. Clark - the first driver I was a fan of - was gifted rather than talented. I don't think I've ever seen his like. Then there was Senna; a confusing man whose dark side should not be allowed to overshadow his remarkable abilities.

How on Earth can you compare them on an 'all time' basis? Well, you can't.

What about those drivers without obvious natural ability who overcame it to win races; lots of them. I don't know if many have seen Hill snr drive, but the first phrase that came to my mind was not naturally gifted. The same with Mansell. Does that make them better for their achievement, against the odds, not to mention predictions?

Hamilton is remarkable. I don't think he's as naturally talented as Cark, Piquet, Alonso. etc, but his overall ability, especially to learn from his mistakes, probably his most remarkable attribute given the conceit needed to be an F1 driver.

I started watching F1 in 1966. My first GP was the British at Brands. I've followed it, nerd like, since then, with a brief break after the infamous Imola race. Even so, I have no idea who's the greatest. While stats alone aren't enough, Hamilton's are all but overwhelming.

But, come on. Hamilton not up there on a level, at least, with the greatest? Because of his teammate? Because he's in the best car? I mean, who wasn't in modern times?

The question is nonsense in effect.

Let's just put that to one side and enjoy the bloke driving. Yesterday was sublime. Not in the best car for a change, yet he, together with inspired team tactics, got the job done. It was magic. It was overwhelming. Being apprently resentful because it wasn't your man winning is not really the F1 way (speaking as a decades long McLaren fan, I know all about not winning).

Enjoy the racing.

Spot on sir!!

[Northernboy]

JNW1 said:

I agree there are probably more talented people who've never sat in a car but you can only attempt to judge those who have!

But if you accept your assertion that the best at racing cars is down to a combination of talent and application, how are you judging the talent part of that equation?

I don’t think that you can split the different bits out with any great precision, and I’m not sure that you should try to. It’s the whole package that wins or loses races, and although at school there was some pride to be had in coming top without appearing to try, in most areas of our adult world it’s overall ability which counts, so that includes the fitness, the practise, the analysis, the ability to adapt, and so on.

That’s why for me the question of who’s the greatest is not trying to dig into some unknowable innate ability, it’s about which driver overall drives the best.

And, having said all that, I don’t know who that is. There’s always a huge tendency because of the availability heuristic to rate current and recent drivers as better than ones from many decades ago, but then because of the factors that I mention above, there’s also a reason to say that the recent drivers really are better.

I think that there’s a good chance that if you out today’s super fit drivers up against the best of the time in races where drivers had to be lifted out of their cars at the end, and for whom training was an extra pint of stout the night before a race, that it’s possible that they’d dominate, as their bodies would be far better to cope with the physical demands. There’s also the chance that through the blurred vision, blistered palms, and burned thighs that today’s drivers would park up a couple of laps in and walk away.

[Jammez]

This is always a great debate but for me, removing the emotional element, I think you have to base it on some of the cold hard info. Talent is such a vague notion & impossible to place any measure or comparison on (if it even exists!) so you can only really look at stuff that could be compared.

Would a 1960's/70's/80's era driver even have had the fitness or dedication to compete against a modern driver? I'm not sure they would - the focus on racing the guys have today is just incomparable to back in Jim Clarks day or even Sennas.

I really believe that a modern driver could drive anything and anyone who thinks someone like Lewis Hamilton or Max Verstappen couldn't ring the neck of anything with wheels on it is kidding themselves.

These guys probably have an insane ability to feel & understand what a car is doing. I'm not sure back in the day even the best drivers could ever have that same level - purely based on the fact that they just didn't spend as much time in the cars, they just didn't dedicate as much time & resource to finessing every element of racing. Maybe there is something such as natural ability but maybe it's more about the fact that these guys just dedicate their lives to it - I think a kid who has been racing since they could barely walk is bound to develop what appears to be some un-natural talent - but I think it does them a disservice to think that doesn't mainly come from just a st load of practice!

Edited by Jammez on Monday 29th March 09:58

[anonymous-user]

Maximus_Meridius101 said:

The biggest issue I have with this, is that a true great ( and there have been a few ) will outdrive a ( relatively) poor car. For example, the engineers / team will say, “that car is probably good for P4” and the truly great driver poles it. This has been a marker of true greatness for ever. Hamilton has never managed this feat. Give him a car worthy of pole, he ( sometimes ) poles it. Give him a dog, and he can’t out perform it, he proved it when he drove for McLaren. The current Merc isn’t as good as last year’s ( and the last few year’s Mercs) but his performance was shown to be mostly down to the car, by George Russell’s performance in his car, when he got the plague last year. When he had a leading car, and a better team mate ( Rosberg ) he lost, that puts another nail in the coffin, as far as ‘is he the G.O.A.T.’ argument goes.

Lewis is the only driver in F1 history to win a race in every season.

He would already be an 9 time champion but for his team screwing that up one year and his team mate cheating the other.

[anonymous-user]

Chris Harris does a good Collecting Cars podcast with Button. He asks Button about LH. Button says that Hamilton isn’t the same driver now as he was when they were teammates. Back then Lewis could do outstandingly well in qualifying but then in the race drove too hard, stressing the car, which is why Button says he was able to compete with Lewis in the race.

Now though, according to Button, Lewis has figured out how to drive a fast smart race too, and that’s made him the truly formidable driver that he is.

It’s worth a listen just to hear Button on a range of other subjects too. Particularly himself.

[MiniMan64]

BlackWidow13 said:

Chris Harris does a good Collecting Cars podcast with Button. He asks Button about LH. Button says that Hamilton isn’t the same driver now as he was when they were teammates. Back then Lewis could do outstandingly well in qualifying but then in the race drove too hard, stressing the car, which is why Button says he was able to compete with Lewis in the race.

Now though, according to Button, Lewis has figured out how to drive a fast smart race too, and that’s made him the truly formidable driver that he is.

It’s worth a listen just to hear Button on a range of other subjects too. Particularly himself.

This is why i think Hamilton really is the GOAT, he has the traits and skills of all the other greats (the ability to pick the right team at the right time, racecraft, tactics, one lap pace, car management, shear outright bloody speed, endurance and fitness, ability to win from a losing position, car control in impossible conditions etc) but has none of the weakness of the greats (the inclination to cheat, the inclination to intentionally crash)

[anonymous-user]

Drivers spent far more time in racing cars than the current F1 drivers do back in the 60's and 70's. They were racing anything with wheels every weekend and testing a lot more. In the 80's onwards they were more F1 focused but still raced sportscars and had full test team programs.

The current drivers hardly do any real driving these days.

[Maximus_Meridius101]

DanL said:

Ordered to return a place, not let him win. You can argue whether that decision was fair or not...

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/974175/1/f1-race-dir...

Given that Hamilton did the same thing, at the same turn, 29 times during the race, and wasn’t punished for it, I’d have said it was completely unfair. Keeping the thread on track though, this sort of thing doesn’t do the argument for him being G.O.A.T. any favours.

Edited by Maximus_Meridius101 on Wednesday 12th May 00:54

[Maximus_Meridius101]

jsf said:

Drivers spent far more time in racing cars than the current F1 drivers do back in the 60's and 70's. They were racing anything with wheels every weekend and testing a lot more. In the 80's onwards they were more F1 focused but still raced sportscars and had full test team programs.

The current drivers hardly do any real driving these days.

Quite right. A Grand Prix, was part of a racing driver’s remit, not their sole purpose, that kind of makes an ‘all time’ great a lot more difficult to pick in some respects, but easier in others.

[DanL]

Maximus_Meridius101 said:

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/974175/1/f1-race-dir...

Given that Hamilton did the same thing, at the same turn, 29 times during the race, and wasn’t punished for it, I’d have said it was completely unfair. Keeping the thread on track though, this sort of thing doesn’t do the argument for him being G.O.A.T. any favours.

“Masi explained that Verstappen’s Turn 4 excursion was ruled to be illegal due to a key distinction in what is deemed as ‘gaining an advantage’.”

“The seven-time world champion admitted he was left confused by this instruction and correctly pointed out that before the race it was communicated that track limits would not be policed at Turn 4, unlike in FP2, FP3 and qualifying when such an offence resulted in lap times being deleted.”

Edited by DanL on Monday 29th March 10:28

[Muzzer79]

Maximus_Meridius101 said:

DanL said:

Ordered to return a place, not let him win. You can argue whether that decision was fair or not...

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/974175/1/f1-race-director-explains-why-29-offs-hamilton-were-legal

Given that Hamilton did the same thing, at the same turn, 29 times during the race, and wasn’t punished for it, I’d have said it was completely unfair. Keeping the thread on track though, this sort of thing doesn’t do the argument for him being G.O.A.T. any favours.

The best drivers always push the rules to the limit. One only has to look at Schumacher and Senna for (several) further examples, if you need to.

Hamilton, for all his success, is a relative choir boy compared to the 'greats' that have gone before him.

If there was a problem with track limits last weekend, it was with the rule-makers, not the drivers.

With regard to the GOAT, I am of the belief that this is an impossible statement due to differences in machinery, culture, safety, circuits, quantity of races and many, many other factors.

I only believe that one can pick a greatest of a particular era. Of the current (post-Schumacher) era, that is unquestionably Hamilton.

Pre-Hamilton it was Schumacher
Pre-Schumacher it was Senna
Pre-Senna it was Lauda
and so on.

[vdn]

Maximus_Meridius101 said:

He’s the best in a very poor era.

Poor era?

[paulguitar]

vdn said:

Maximus_Meridius101 said:

He’s the best in a very poor era.

Poor era?

MM appears to be either a troll or just genuinely clueless about F1. I think it's the former.

[vdn]

DanL said:

Maximus_Meridius101 said:

https://talksport.com/sport/motorsport/856685/lewi...

Especially when the opposition is ordered to let him win.

Ordered to return a place, not let him win. You can argue whether that decision was fair or not...

Exactly!!

"Ordered to let him win" ... the thicko's are out in force.

There was no such order. And Max would ignore such an order if it were given.

People are unable to be rational