Lewis Hamilton

Lewis Hamilton

Author
Discussion

paulw123

706 posts

134 months

Thursday 8th August
quotequote all
You can only race what you have to compete with so in my opinion it’s Clark v Hamilton. Both the best in their own eras. Have no respect for Senna or Schumacher as blatant cheating removes you from being a GOAT in my opinion though were both the most talented in their own eras

angrymoby

945 posts

122 months

Thursday 8th August
quotequote all
Bo_apex said:
I think Schumacher had 11 DNF's in the first 2 full seasons at Benetton, something we don't see much of nowadays due to excellent reliability.
talk about spin, only half of those were due to reliability ...he crashed/ spun out in the other half

Durzel

7,655 posts

112 months

Thursday 8th August
quotequote all
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.

paulguitar

3,195 posts

57 months

Thursday 8th August
quotequote all
Durzel said:
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.
Has anyone suggested that?

Durzel

7,655 posts

112 months

Thursday 8th August
quotequote all
paulguitar said:
Durzel said:
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.
Has anyone suggested that?
No, not explicitly, I meant more in context of the whole GOAT stuff. I don't think "GOAT" is something that can be applied in F1.

angrymoby

945 posts

122 months

Thursday 8th August
quotequote all
Durzel said:
Not being facetious but can you really differentiate between drivers when the machinery plays such a huge part?
luckily for us, some great/ GOAT drivers have gone up against other great drivers in equal machinery

Durzel

7,655 posts

112 months

Thursday 8th August
quotequote all
angrymoby said:
Durzel said:
Not being facetious but can you really differentiate between drivers when the machinery plays such a huge part?
luckily for us, some great/ GOAT drivers have gone up against other great drivers in equal machinery
Yup, one of them even retired afterwards wink

CustardOnChips

175 posts

6 months

Thursday 8th August
quotequote all
Durzel said:
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.
But if you look at how many times the other driver in his team have beaten him, you get an idea of how good he is.

The most recent won a world championship (with a large slice of luck) and had to retire because he couldn't keep up the intensity. All while Lewis was jetting around the world having a good time.

angrymoby

945 posts

122 months

Thursday 8th August
quotequote all
Durzel said:
Yup, one of them even retired afterwards wink
& if we only knew how good that retiring driver actually was wink



Edited by angrymoby on Thursday 15th August 09:17

heebeegeetee

26,732 posts

192 months

Thursday 8th August
quotequote all
Durzel said:
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.
Aren't Bottas and Gasley representative of the other drivers on the grid?

I would say that Jim Clark probably was stratospherically better than most of the other drivers on his grid, but obviously other drivers who are just as good are going to come along, and they're going to beat the other drivers on the grid too.

How do you know that the current cars don't mask how good a given driver truly is? It's not like Jim Clark's day when there would be truly significant differences in the cars, such as rear-engined v front-engined, monocoque v spaceframe or chassis, DFV or none-DFV, wings v no-wings, and so on.

Earlier in the thread someone said a dozen drivers would be champion LH's car. When McLaren won 15 of 16 races, Alain Prost (Alain Prost!) still couldn't win the championship, so it mystifies me when people say any sundry journeyman F1 driver would win. They wouldn't because there'd always be someone better in the other car, and you work that one all the way up to Alain Prost who imo was head and shoulders above most. His season at Ferrari when he nearly beat Senna and blew team-mate Mansell out of the water was a classic example.

HustleRussell

16,673 posts

104 months

Thursday 8th August
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
Earlier in the thread someone said a dozen drivers would be champion LH's car. When McLaren won 15 of 16 races, Alain Prost (Alain Prost!) still couldn't win the championship, so it mystifies me when people say any sundry journeyman F1 driver would win. They wouldn't because there'd always be someone better in the other car, and you work that one all the way up to Alain Prost who imo was head and shoulders above most. His season at Ferrari when he nearly beat Senna and blew team-mate Mansell out of the water was a classic example.
The depth of talent on the current grid must be a factor? The increasing professionalism of the sport, the superlicence system etc etc.

angrymoby

945 posts

122 months

Thursday 8th August
quotequote all
HustleRussell said:
The depth of talent on the current grid must be a factor? The increasing professionalism of the sport, the superlicence system etc etc.
& less fatalities/ career ending injuries

& up until fairly recently we had 5/6 WDC'ers on the grid for a fair few years

MarkwG

1,940 posts

133 months

Thursday 8th August
quotequote all
paulguitar said:
Durzel said:
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.
Has anyone suggested that?
Except, when you're talking "what ifs?" you can't assume the McLaren we've seen since he left, would be the same car if he'd stayed. Every binary decision has a consequential effect, so leaving changes the outcome, but so does staying. Behind the scenes, if he'd stayed, the team may have behaved differently, brought in or changed sponsors, suppliers, a different team mate - or none of those. He may have won nothing, or one or more championships.

However, for him to stay, McLaren would need to have been a different team before he left which, of course, didn't happen. He left because he didn't think the change would either happen or be effective, & he was proven correct, whereas he gambled on Mercedes achieving, which they did. We only get to see the one version play out. It could be argued that spotting that potential is the mark of a true champion...

NRS

14,776 posts

145 months

Thursday 8th August
quotequote all
Same as Alonso has done...

Mr Tidy

8,911 posts

71 months

Wednesday 14th August
quotequote all
angrymoby said:
Durzel said:
Yup, one of them even retired afterwards wink
& if we only we knew how good that retiring driver actually was wink
Well even if we didn't, I think he knew - which is why he retired once he had managed to win!

I don't think he would ever have managed another title.

TheDeuce

2,552 posts

10 months

Wednesday 14th August
quotequote all
Mr Tidy said:
angrymoby said:
Durzel said:
Yup, one of them even retired afterwards wink
& if we only we knew how good that retiring driver actually was wink
Well even if we didn't, I think he knew - which is why he retired once he had managed to win!

I don't think he would ever have managed another title.
He's said as much himself on various occasions. He had to put his entire personal life on hold for a year to focus 100% on gaining the calm, focus and composure that Lewis finds naturally to get the job done. And still only just got it done.

Clearly his efforts paid off, but it's hardly sustainable year upon year. Nonetheless, very impressive that he managed to identify how to beat Lewis and was able to apply what was needed in a year long mental effort.

A few choice quotes from Rosberg here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gpfans.com/amp/ar...


TobyTR

588 posts

90 months

Wednesday 14th August
quotequote all
Bo_apex said:
37chevy said:
Bo_apex said:
Well said.

Although unlike Clarke and Co unfortunately Lewis didn't really shine for a few years, between 2009 and 2013.

Seems he really needed to get the Mercedes seat. Thankfully Lauda was persuasive.
I think he shone, just wish a fairly naff car you can’t completely show your thing, just like Schumacher had a few rough years with Benetton and the initial Ferrari’s.

Fangio is probably the only exception but then he always switched so he was in the best car at all times
I think Schumacher had 11 DNF's in the first 2 full seasons at Benetton, something we don't see much of nowadays due to excellent reliability.

Next 2 full seasons were both WDC, while adapting to different engines, Ford then Renault.

Fangio was also great at adapting.
Yup. Schumacher finished ahead of teammate Nelson Piquet in his first race for Benetton in '91. Then he managed to finish ahead of Senna in the WDC in 1992 (3rd) - in his first full year in F1 and at Benetton, best-of-the-rest behind the all-conquering Williams. In 1993 every race Schumacher finished was on the podium, including one win, while teammate Brundle was finishing between 5th-14th...

He also made the '96, '97, '98 Ferraris race winners and title contenders, certainly not what you could call rough years

StevieBee

7,815 posts

199 months

Wednesday 14th August
quotequote all
Durzel said:
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?
The counter argument to this is to ask whether a Pastor Maldonado or a Jolyon Palmer in the Mercedes would be a multiple world champion.

It's one of the subtleties of F1 that make appreciation of it the preserve of the enthusiast rather than the casual observer. F1 is very much a team sport and like all teams, the most successful are those that recruit the best people available to them including of course, the driver. Thus, the best drivers tend to be with the best teams (though not always).






slipstream 1985

6,481 posts

123 months

Wednesday 14th August
quotequote all
StevieBee said:
Durzel said:
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?
The counter argument to this is to ask whether a Pastor Maldonado or a Jolyon Palmer in the Mercedes would be a multiple world champion.

It's one of the subtleties of F1 that make appreciation of it the preserve of the enthusiast rather than the casual observer. F1 is very much a team sport and like all teams, the most successful are those that recruit the best people available to them including of course, the driver. Thus, the best drivers tend to be with the best teams (though not always).
If a car wins the championship and the sister car does not finish 2nd (without some extenuating circumstance) you could argue the driver made the difference.

Halmyre

7,234 posts

83 months

Wednesday 14th August
quotequote all
slipstream 1985 said:
StevieBee said:
Durzel said:
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?
The counter argument to this is to ask whether a Pastor Maldonado or a Jolyon Palmer in the Mercedes would be a multiple world champion.

It's one of the subtleties of F1 that make appreciation of it the preserve of the enthusiast rather than the casual observer. F1 is very much a team sport and like all teams, the most successful are those that recruit the best people available to them including of course, the driver. Thus, the best drivers tend to be with the best teams (though not always).
If a car wins the championship and the sister car does not finish 2nd (without some extenuating circumstance) you could argue the driver made the difference.
Out of 69 Drivers' World Championships, 20 resulted with a 1-2 finish for the same team (green):