Lewis Hamilton
Discussion
Comparing hamilton to Clark is plain impossible. There's the talent pool and grooming to consider today. There must be literally millions of budding racing drivers around today, a tiny fraction of that in Clark's time. As such you will never see his kind of apparent godly talent gap ever again.
mattikake said:
Comparing hamilton to Clark is plain impossible. There's the talent pool and grooming to consider today. There must be literally millions of budding racing drivers around today, a tiny fraction of that in Clark's time. As such you will never see his kind of apparent godly talent gap ever again.
That is a good point. Whilst Clark was clearly an exceptional driver, I doubt he had quite the same level of competition to deal with. It's a real shame Stirling had his accident, it would have really been something to see how he and Jimmy would have compared.
paulguitar said:
That is a good point. Whilst Clark was clearly an exceptional driver, I doubt he had quite the same level of competition to deal with. It's a real shame Stirling had his accident, it would have really been something to see how he and Jimmy would have compared.
Yup....I think that’s why the gap between the greats and the good these days is a lot smaller than it used to be. Training is so rigorous, right from the ages of 8, no stone is left unturned, one driver can’t just find seconds because everyone is generally doing the same thing. As you say, the talent pool is much larger too.Halmyre said:
The level of dominance? Clark won 51% of the races in which he finished. If Lewis had done that, he would have 120 victories instead of 81.
Winning a rain-soaked 1963 Belgian GP by nearly 5 minutes; winning first time out in the Lotus 49, having never even seen it before the event; persuading the Lotus 43-BRM to its only win; coming from over a lap down at Monza in 1967 (and thwarted by fuel problems); winning the WC and the Indy 500 in the same year (and the Tasman series and the French F2 championship for good measure).
Overall they have both won almost the same percentage of races in F1. To finish first etc. Fangio is the master of that Stat. Lewis will no doubt overtake Clark. That said I always think of Clark as the GOAT because of the other series, but as everyone says not easy to compare. How do we factor in Lewis's dominance in other series for instance. Winning a rain-soaked 1963 Belgian GP by nearly 5 minutes; winning first time out in the Lotus 49, having never even seen it before the event; persuading the Lotus 43-BRM to its only win; coming from over a lap down at Monza in 1967 (and thwarted by fuel problems); winning the WC and the Indy 500 in the same year (and the Tasman series and the French F2 championship for good measure).
Halmyre said:
The level of dominance? Clark won 51% of the races in which he finished. If Lewis had done that, he would have 120 victories instead of 81.
Winning a rain-soaked 1963 Belgian GP by nearly 5 minutes; winning first time out in the Lotus 49, having never even seen it before the event; persuading the Lotus 43-BRM to its only win; coming from over a lap down at Monza in 1967 (and thwarted by fuel problems); winning the WC and the Indy 500 in the same year (and the Tasman series and the French F2 championship for good measure).
Again, can’t really compare. Level of dominance against what competition?Winning a rain-soaked 1963 Belgian GP by nearly 5 minutes; winning first time out in the Lotus 49, having never even seen it before the event; persuading the Lotus 43-BRM to its only win; coming from over a lap down at Monza in 1967 (and thwarted by fuel problems); winning the WC and the Indy 500 in the same year (and the Tasman series and the French F2 championship for good measure).
The cars were less reliable, teams less professional, drivers less fit, professional, some were gentleman drivers etc etc. I’m not diminishing Clark’s achievements, he was brilliant, but you can’t compare the 2 drivers because the conditions in those eras are entirely different
37chevy said:
Halmyre said:
The level of dominance? Clark won 51% of the races in which he finished. If Lewis had done that, he would have 120 victories instead of 81.
Winning a rain-soaked 1963 Belgian GP by nearly 5 minutes; winning first time out in the Lotus 49, having never even seen it before the event; persuading the Lotus 43-BRM to its only win; coming from over a lap down at Monza in 1967 (and thwarted by fuel problems); winning the WC and the Indy 500 in the same year (and the Tasman series and the French F2 championship for good measure).
Again, can’t really compare. Level of dominance against what competition?Winning a rain-soaked 1963 Belgian GP by nearly 5 minutes; winning first time out in the Lotus 49, having never even seen it before the event; persuading the Lotus 43-BRM to its only win; coming from over a lap down at Monza in 1967 (and thwarted by fuel problems); winning the WC and the Indy 500 in the same year (and the Tasman series and the French F2 championship for good measure).
The cars were less reliable, teams less professional, drivers less fit, professional, some were gentleman drivers etc etc. I’m not diminishing Clark’s achievements, he was brilliant, but you can’t compare the 2 drivers because the conditions in those eras are entirely different
It would not be conceivable for a modern driver to race in DTM, F1 and F2 in the same weekend.
It’s a nonsense to try and compare.
paulguitar said:
mattikake said:
Comparing hamilton to Clark is plain impossible. There's the talent pool and grooming to consider today. There must be literally millions of budding racing drivers around today, a tiny fraction of that in Clark's time. As such you will never see his kind of apparent godly talent gap ever again.
That is a good point. Whilst Clark was clearly an exceptional driver, I doubt he had quite the same level of competition to deal with. It's a real shame Stirling had his accident, it would have really been something to see how he and Jimmy would have compared.And those weren't rookies he thumped at Indianapolis either.
Halmyre said:
Yes, Clark was competing against also-rans like Hill, Surtees, Brabham, Gurney, McLaren, Stewart, Amon, ...
And those weren't rookies he thumped at Indianapolis either.
Some very fine drivers there, but I simply do not accept that in the 1960's the quality of competition throughout the field was at the level it is now.And those weren't rookies he thumped at Indianapolis either.
Honestly, do you?
It is impossible to judge past drivers with modern.
Completely different sport now as Lewis himself has stated on many occasions. Think his words were they must have been crazy to race these things.
Entering a race event knowing there is a high possibility that a car issue or mistake could kill you was the norm back in the day.
To see these drivers on the limit of what the cars were capable of back then is pretty humbling, to say the least.
But again it was a totally different sport and impossible to judge Clark vs Senna vs Hamilton.
But I would like to see the modern F1 drivers challenged more as far as more gravel traps in the slower parts of circuits.
Make them think a bit more like the rose-tinted days
Completely different sport now as Lewis himself has stated on many occasions. Think his words were they must have been crazy to race these things.
Entering a race event knowing there is a high possibility that a car issue or mistake could kill you was the norm back in the day.
To see these drivers on the limit of what the cars were capable of back then is pretty humbling, to say the least.
But again it was a totally different sport and impossible to judge Clark vs Senna vs Hamilton.
But I would like to see the modern F1 drivers challenged more as far as more gravel traps in the slower parts of circuits.
Make them think a bit more like the rose-tinted days
ELUSIVEJIM said:
So Rosberg is a Horner pundit?
Webber but no doubt that was due to his Red Bull ties if he even still speaks to them.
Eddie Jordan and others have stated in words that he is currently the best driver of 2019.
Autosport also has a midway drivers rating.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/driver-ratings
Considering the car compared to the Mercedes it's hard to argue that Max Verstappen has been the best driver of 2019.
But I would say it's 50/50 with Lewis.
Both are tier one + drivers.
There must be something wrong, I'm agreeing with Elusive Jim Webber but no doubt that was due to his Red Bull ties if he even still speaks to them.
Eddie Jordan and others have stated in words that he is currently the best driver of 2019.
Autosport also has a midway drivers rating.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/driver-ratings
Considering the car compared to the Mercedes it's hard to argue that Max Verstappen has been the best driver of 2019.
But I would say it's 50/50 with Lewis.
Both are tier one + drivers.
Even Lewis himself gave Max 8.9 and himself 8.7-8.8. Both a class above everybody else. Mind you Lewis has not really had to try much this season with Ferrari's lack of application. Now he does need to since Red Bull have stepped up.
It's a funny thing, comparing drivers from different eras. I think I can compare Lauda with Senna with Schumacher with Hamilton because I watched them all race but in reality, I was a bairn with Lauda, a kid with Senna and bored senseless with Schumi.
Most of it is clouded by the history books, some of it with bias and ignorance rules with the glory years as it's just so old to be beyond the realms of my imagination.
I still think, of the ones whom I'm certain are one of the all time greats, the top ten to top five of all time I think Hamilton is up there with Senna, Schumacher, Stewart and Clark. You add in Nuvolari, Fangio, perhaps one or two more and he still holds firm with them.
I understand Senna and Schumacher being marked down for their driving indiscretions, or their status in a team but even though I didn't like it I don't think these reasons really count against them too much.
If you took away their dirty driving for instance, would they have been any worse? Of course not.
If Hamilton equals Schumacher's record however, by beating world champions within the same team and driving with impeccable sporting behaviour he's above him in my book.
Still, he's not there yet...
Most of it is clouded by the history books, some of it with bias and ignorance rules with the glory years as it's just so old to be beyond the realms of my imagination.
I still think, of the ones whom I'm certain are one of the all time greats, the top ten to top five of all time I think Hamilton is up there with Senna, Schumacher, Stewart and Clark. You add in Nuvolari, Fangio, perhaps one or two more and he still holds firm with them.
I understand Senna and Schumacher being marked down for their driving indiscretions, or their status in a team but even though I didn't like it I don't think these reasons really count against them too much.
If you took away their dirty driving for instance, would they have been any worse? Of course not.
If Hamilton equals Schumacher's record however, by beating world champions within the same team and driving with impeccable sporting behaviour he's above him in my book.
Still, he's not there yet...
Not being facetious but can you really differentiate between drivers when the machinery plays such a huge part?
It's not like you're comparing LeBron James or Usain Bolt to the competition, where their physicality, intelligence, skill, etc is all what sets them apart.
Hamilton would absolutely not be winning championships over and over if he was still in a McLaren, I don't know how anyone could suggest otherwise. He would certainly be wringing the absolute best out of those cars, but would he be consistently beating - say - Ricciardo if he were the one in the 2014 on Mercedes?
Unfortunately that is F1, but I think as a general rule it's not black and white comparing champions when the machinery they're in, and how much better it was relative to the competition whenever they were winning, is a major factor. I'd argue it's possibly even 60/40 driver/car in terms of contribution.
It just happens to be the case that he is a great driver in the best car, he is not somehow stratospherically better than everyone else on the grid, though he is better than most for sure. His time in the 4th place on and midfield wilderness with McLaren is evidence of how big a factor the car (and the competition at the time) is.
It's not like you're comparing LeBron James or Usain Bolt to the competition, where their physicality, intelligence, skill, etc is all what sets them apart.
Hamilton would absolutely not be winning championships over and over if he was still in a McLaren, I don't know how anyone could suggest otherwise. He would certainly be wringing the absolute best out of those cars, but would he be consistently beating - say - Ricciardo if he were the one in the 2014 on Mercedes?
Unfortunately that is F1, but I think as a general rule it's not black and white comparing champions when the machinery they're in, and how much better it was relative to the competition whenever they were winning, is a major factor. I'd argue it's possibly even 60/40 driver/car in terms of contribution.
It just happens to be the case that he is a great driver in the best car, he is not somehow stratospherically better than everyone else on the grid, though he is better than most for sure. His time in the 4th place on and midfield wilderness with McLaren is evidence of how big a factor the car (and the competition at the time) is.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff