Lewis Hamilton (Vol. 2)

[anonymous-user]

angrymoby said:

uptheraidillon said:

To his credit, Hamilton is currently above Clark's win percentage, but has he beaten Senna's qualifying percentage? Clark's? Fangio's win and qualifying percentages?

the problem with percentages, is that they're dependent on career length ...i mean if JV had retired/ deceased after 4 races, he'd have had a quali percentage of 100%

unfortunately we lost both Clark & Senna too soon

That's true to a point. Fangio's, Clark's and Senna's career spanned 6+ years. I wouldn't call them one year wonders

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 13th October 11:02

[paulguitar]

ddom said:

Exactly, the history books can show the numbers, and there’s no disputing those, but the GOAT, that’s a different matter. Impossible to split the drivers.

We all agree on that. Will you now retract this?

ddom said:

Hamilton is no match for Schumacher/Prost/Senna et al.

Or do you intend to keep digging?

[anonymous-user]

Kudos to Hamilton being OK with future drivers potentially passing his records.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 15th October 08:00

[ddom]

paulguitar said:

Or do you intend to keep digging?

I am not sure why you are so offended about these things....

It's my opinion, I think the different eras had different demands and this one, for me, is just a very different Championship. Hamilton is the best driver in his generation, that doesn't seem enough for some.?

[paulguitar]

ddom said:

paulguitar said:

Or do you intend to keep digging?

I am not sure why you are so offended about these things....

It's my opinion, I think the different eras had different demands and this one, for me, is just a very different Championship. Hamilton is the best driver in his generation, that doesn't seem enough for some.?

I'm not 'offended', but I do feel it's a good idea to correct nonsense. You claim Hamilton 'is no match for Schumacher/Prost/Senna et al.'

Are you sticking with that, or are you prepared to correct yourself? If you do believe that, will you please explain the reasoning?

[anonymous-user]

It doesn't look like Hamilton is looking to beat records for records sake, which isn't a bad thing.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 13th October 11:15

[C350Akra]

ddom said:

Schumacher's appalling record, deary me A driver in the best car throughout his career with a silver spoon in his gob that apparently is so much more 'real' than that nasty fellow Michael. It's total BS. jackie Stewart nailed it, you cannot compare the generations and IMO Hamilton is no match for Schumacher/Prost/Senna et al.

You really are clueless aren't you? MS does have an appalling record for cheating, that is a fact. Also, to state that somebody born in a council house has a 'silver spoon in his gob' shows an absolute lack of knowledge of that person's background and how hard his father had to work to give him the opportunity to go karting. The best drivers tend to end up in the best cars, because the best cars team managers want the best drivers. Hamilton has demonstrated throughout his career, from karting all the way through to F1, that he is an exceptional talent.

When Hamilton won his first WDC the McLaren was not the best car, that was the Ferrari. He is also the only driver to win races in every year of his career and the only driver to have won an F1 race at every race track used during his F1 career.

Yet, according to you he is not up their with the best? Only in your dreams.

[TwentyFive]

ddom said:

paulguitar said:

Drivel.

Fact. The 'sport' is different in each generation. Of course, this most obvious thing will never work for some.

If we are dealing in facts then Hamilton has won at least 40 more races that the other drivers you listed, with the single exception of Schumacher whom he is currently tied with.

With that fact in mind, please do provide the 'fact' you previously mentioned to support your view that he is actually no match for other drivers that he is statistically significantly more successful than? I would like to hear it.

The generational difference doesn't really apply either because Schumacher raced again both Senna and Prost, beating them both at various points in his 92-94 Benetton days, and then he also raced against Lewis for 3 seasons in 10-12. He is the reference point.

If a young Michael was beating the likes of Prost and Senna back in the 90s, then I would suggest that Lewis having since gone on to beat Michael both on track and in the record books shows that he would have comfortably been a match for all of them and would have been capable of beating both Senna and Prost in the same way Schumacher did.

[RB Will]

uptheraidillon said:

angrymoby said:

uptheraidillon said:

To his credit, Hamilton is currently above Clark's win percentage, but has he beaten Senna's qualifying percentage? Clark's? Fangio's win and qualifying percentages?

the problem with percentages, is that they're dependent on career length ...i mean if JV had retired/ deceased after 4 races, he'd have had a quali percentage of 100%

unfortunately we lost both Clark & Senna too soon

That's true to a point. Fangio's, Clark's and Senna's career spanned 6+ years. I wouldn't call them one year wonders

Edited by uptheraidillon on Tuesday 13th October 11:02

Surely career length, championship length etc are the very reasons we have to work in percentages?
It’s unfair to say for example Hamilton is a better driver than Fangio because he has more poles, points and wins when that is a consequence of modern F1 having 2-3 times as many races a year with 2.5 times the points on offer and Hamilton’s career being twice as long

[Mr Pointy]

Hamilton puts Stewart back in his box:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hamilton-older-...

You can buy a Rolex but you can't buy class.

[angrymoby]

RB Will said:

Surely career length, championship length etc are the very reasons we have to work in percentages?
It’s unfair to say for example Hamilton is a better driver than Fangio because he has more poles, points and wins when that is a consequence of modern F1 having 2-3 times as many races a year with 2.5 times the points on offer and Hamilton’s career being twice as long

you can if you want ...Hamilton has won 50% of all WDC's he's entered (well, after this season 7 in 14)

& i don't say Hamilton is better driver than Fangio because of points/ poles/ wins ...i say it because F1 is no longer a gentlemans club & now has a much wider pool of talent & competitiveness (& this will also be true of all future drivers/ champions until that pool starts to decrease)

Edited by angrymoby on Tuesday 13th October 12:19

[anonymous-user]

glazbagun said:

williamp said:

There has been brilliance in every era. And there have been brilliant drives by also-rans in every era.

I dont get why Stewart seems to have a downer on Hamilton. Is it because he held the records before lewis came along?

JYS has always been very loyal to his sponsors. Maybe Lewis turned down the Ford scorpio and Rolex watch in favour of more modern brands??

Maybe lewis needs to find some scottish ancestory. When will tartan be back in fashion?

Maybe its an old man from another generation whose words and meaning are not as carefully contolled and PR savvy as these days, and they get misunderstood?

Prost beat all of Stewarts records iirc. But Prost was also full of praise for Clark, Stewart, etc.

I think its a combination of a guy who has always been opinionated and thick skinned (his biography reads like that!), with a media keen to portray him as an adversary combined with Lewis not rarely seeming to care much about the past (barring Senna) meaning they're also unlikely to get on.

They both seemed to get on with Lauda from what I recall, so I doubt they have a problem with strong personalities who don't mince their words, and the worst I've heard JYS say about Lewis is that he can't honestly call him the greatest f1 driver ever. He had much worse things to say about Senna!

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 13th October 09:40

It may have grown bigger with Hamilton equlling the race win record and others being close.

Agree. If that's the worst another multi WDC has to say - things could be a lot worse.

It's not like Hamilton has gone all Muhammad Ali

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 13th October 12:29

[ddom]

paulguitar said:

I'm not 'offended', but I do feel it's a good idea to correct nonsense. You claim Hamilton 'is no match for Schumacher/Prost/Senna et al.'

Are you sticking with that, or are you prepared to correct yourself? If you do believe that, will you please explain the reasoning?

I have no need to correct anything. I believe there were 'better' drivers in other eras. Whatever particular drive or event I point out you will not be interested so there's little point in doing so.

[paulguitar]

ddom said:

I have no need to correct anything. I believe there were 'better' drivers in other eras. Whatever particular drive or event I point out you will not be interested so there's little point in doing so.

It's not about not being interested, I've not missed a race for 33 years. The situation here is that you have an opinion that you can't back up.

[ddom]

paulguitar said:

It's not about not being interested, I've not missed a race for 33 years. The situation here is that you have an opinion that you can't back up.

No, the issue is you believe that Hamilton is the best, so why would I debate this with you?

Fangio won the title with 4 manufacturers and had (has?) the highest win ratio. “Better to lose honorably in a British car than win in a foreign one” – Sir Stirling Moss, the best never to win. Senna, the greatest driver (for me) to ever race, ability in the wet, one lap pace, his refusal to cower to the FIA and that asshole Balestre which cost him a WC more than likely. Schumacher qualifying 7th at spar never having driven there, the infamous gearbox second place after most the race in 5th gear. He soured his record with some blatant gamemanship, but let's face it, if it had been poor old Damon in his position the British public would have hailed him a genius.

Hamilton is the best driver currently in the world, but let's be realistic about the cars he has had. It's not like he had to make his way with Super Aguri when he began F1 was it The courage needed in years gone by without an army of technicians and the safety nets (due in no small part to Jackie Stewart and others) we now have make it impossible to state a GOAT.

[C70R]

ddom said:

paulguitar said:

It's not about not being interested, I've not missed a race for 33 years. The situation here is that you have an opinion that you can't back up.

No, the issue is you believe that Hamilton is the best, so why would I debate this with you?

Fangio won the title with 4 manufacturers and had (has?) the highest win ratio. “Better to lose honorably in a British car than win in a foreign one” – Sir Stirling Moss, the best never to win. Senna, the greatest driver (for me) to ever race, ability in the wet, one lap pace, his refusal to cower to the FIA and that asshole Balestre which cost him a WC more than likely. Schumacher qualifying 7th at spar never having driven there, the infamous gearbox second place after most the race in 5th gear. He soured his record with some blatant gamemanship, but let's face it, if it had been poor old Damon in his position the British public would have hailed him a genius.

Hamilton is the best driver currently in the world, but let's be realistic about the cars he has had. It's not like he had to make his way with Super Aguri when he began F1 was it The courage needed in years gone by without an army of technicians and the safety nets (due in no small part to Jackie Stewart and others) we now have make it impossible to state a GOAT.

You're missing "in my opinion" from there.

See the continuation of 'opinions presented as facts'.

[ddom]

C70R said:

ddom said:

paulguitar said:

It's not about not being interested, I've not missed a race for 33 years. The situation here is that you have an opinion that you can't back up.

No, the issue is you believe that Hamilton is the best, so why would I debate this with you?

Fangio won the title with 4 manufacturers and had (has?) the highest win ratio. “Better to lose honorably in a British car than win in a foreign one” – Sir Stirling Moss, the best never to win. Senna, the greatest driver (for me) to ever race, ability in the wet, one lap pace, his refusal to cower to the FIA and that asshole Balestre which cost him a WC more than likely. Schumacher qualifying 7th at spar never having driven there, the infamous gearbox second place after most the race in 5th gear. He soured his record with some blatant gamemanship, but let's face it, if it had been poor old Damon in his position the British public would have hailed him a genius.

Hamilton is the best driver currently in the world, but let's be realistic about the cars he has had. It's not like he had to make his way with Super Aguri when he began F1 was it The courage needed in years gone by without an army of technicians and the safety nets (due in no small part to Jackie Stewart and others) we now have make it impossible to state a GOAT.

You're missing "in my opinion" from there.

See the continuation of 'opinions presented as facts'.

[paulguitar]

ddom said:

No, the issue is you believe that Hamilton is the best, so why would I debate this with you?

Actually, if you bothered to read my posts, you would see that I have not said this. I say that Hamilton is the best of his era. My issue with you is when you said 'Hamilton is no match for Schumacher/Prost/Senna et al.' You have no case whatsoever for that, because it's patently bks.

ddom said:

Fangio won the title with 4 manufacturers and had (has?) the highest win ratio. “Better to lose honorably in a British car than win in a foreign one” – Sir Stirling Moss, the best never to win. Senna, the greatest driver (for me) to ever race, ability in the wet, one lap pace, his refusal to cower to the FIA and that asshole Balestre which cost him a WC more than likely.

That's all fair enough, nothing to do with Hamilton's achievements, which remain just as valid.

ddom said:

Schumacher qualifying 7th at spar




Must have missed that one.

ddom said:

Hamilton is the best driver currently in the world, but let's be realistic about the cars he has had. It's not like he had to make his way with Super Aguri when he began F1 was it

Irrelevant. See Alonso in the 2015-2017 McLaren.

ddom said:

The courage needed in years gone by without an army of technicians and the safety nets (due in no small part to Jackie Stewart and others) we now have make it impossible to state a GOAT.

Best of his era, as previously stated. Yet again, this issue is your claim 'Hamilton is no match for Schumacher/Prost/Senna et al.' Which you refuse to back down from.

[C350Akra]

angrymoby said:

you can if you want ...Hamilton has won 50% of all WDC's he's entered (well, after this season 7 in 14)

Hamilton is also top of the list for win/start percentage/ratio in the era where car/driver swaps/changes are not permitted.

[ddom]

paulguitar said:

Actually, if you bothered to read my posts, you would see that I have not said this. I say that Hamilton is the best of his era. My issue with you is when you said 'Hamilton is no match for Schumacher/Prost/Senna et al.' You have no case whatsoever for that, because it's patently bks.

What is 'patently bks' is your reading comprehension. You may feel he is a match (perhaps equal is a better word) for others, I do not, for the reasons listed.