How many titles would Hamilton have if he stayed at McLaren?
Discussion
It is amazing how much difference just one decision can make. Likewise if Schumacher hadn't joined Ferrari, or how Vettel would have been better in the long-term if he stuck it out with Red Bull.
Hence I don't think wins and titles are how a driver should be judged, Hamilton would be just as good a driver if he had made the mistake of staying at McLaren and spent most of his career in the midfield.
But what I think is more interesting is how 5 years ago no one compared Hamilton to Schumacher, even though he was just as good a driver then as he is now. Why do immaterial statistics make such a difference to how good a driver is perceived as being? Or is it that F1 fans simply cannot judge driver skill and thus rely on statistics as their only measure to judge how good each driver is?
Either way, I predict Hamilton's wins and titles records will never be broken since F1 will become unfeasible in the environmental future and cease to exist when people have lost interest in automobiles and attention spans further decrease.
Hence I don't think wins and titles are how a driver should be judged, Hamilton would be just as good a driver if he had made the mistake of staying at McLaren and spent most of his career in the midfield.
But what I think is more interesting is how 5 years ago no one compared Hamilton to Schumacher, even though he was just as good a driver then as he is now. Why do immaterial statistics make such a difference to how good a driver is perceived as being? Or is it that F1 fans simply cannot judge driver skill and thus rely on statistics as their only measure to judge how good each driver is?
Either way, I predict Hamilton's wins and titles records will never be broken since F1 will become unfeasible in the environmental future and cease to exist when people have lost interest in automobiles and attention spans further decrease.
Mclaren have always flip-flopped between their design concepts and often ended up with egg on their face.
They're not a team - currently - I would back for anything apart from the odd lucky podium here and there. The Mercedes power next year wont change much either as all the engines are close and the regulations have tightend things up after years of being stable for the power trains.
Mercedes' dominance has been in sticking to a winning formula and small incremental improvements while other teams have been struggling to find a performance balance for years.
So...had he stayed at Mclaren he would have been stuck on 1 title and Rosberg would probably be considered as the GOAT.
They're not a team - currently - I would back for anything apart from the odd lucky podium here and there. The Mercedes power next year wont change much either as all the engines are close and the regulations have tightend things up after years of being stable for the power trains.
Mercedes' dominance has been in sticking to a winning formula and small incremental improvements while other teams have been struggling to find a performance balance for years.
So...had he stayed at Mclaren he would have been stuck on 1 title and Rosberg would probably be considered as the GOAT.
Schermerhorn said:
Mclaren have always flip-flopped between their design concepts and often ended up with egg on their face.
They're not a team - currently - I would back for anything apart from the odd lucky podium here and there. The Mercedes power next year wont change much either as all the engines are close and the regulations have tightend things up after years of being stable for the power trains.
Mercedes' dominance has been in sticking to a winning formula and small incremental improvements while other teams have been struggling to find a performance balance for years.
So...had he stayed at Mclaren he would have been stuck on 1 title and Rosberg would probably be considered as the GOAT.
If this correct (and I tend to think it is) then it is amazing how little influence driver ability actually has on who is considered the greatest. It also makes me wonder if Schumacher and others were really much better than other drivers during their era. They're not a team - currently - I would back for anything apart from the odd lucky podium here and there. The Mercedes power next year wont change much either as all the engines are close and the regulations have tightend things up after years of being stable for the power trains.
Mercedes' dominance has been in sticking to a winning formula and small incremental improvements while other teams have been struggling to find a performance balance for years.
So...had he stayed at Mclaren he would have been stuck on 1 title and Rosberg would probably be considered as the GOAT.
I'm not sure that no one was predicting he was multiple WDC material, certainly not after his first, rather dramatic, season in the McLaren. He was alongside one of the greats and showed him a thing or two in his rookie season.
That said, the records are littered with drivers who were predicted to go far and then just faded. I was a fan of H.H. Frentzen. Who? some will ask. And I’d say point made, yet he beat Schumacher occasionally in lower formulae.
I've seen drivers whom I'd suggest had more natural ability, such as Alonso and, particularly for me, Piquet, but Hamilton seemed to have that extra something: a willingness to learn. There does seem to be a certain lack of conceit, not always apparent I'd suggest. However, when he makes a mistake, or under-achieves, he does seem to do that thing that I find impressive (because it eludes me) of not repeating it. That’s not chance.
I've thoroughly enjoyed watching him over the years, even after he left 'my' team. He's turned into the perfect package, or as perfect as I've seen. The fact he doesn’t deliberately drive into other cars or block the chances of others to qualify is another positive.
That said, I wholeheartedly agree that crude stats, such as wins, poles and WDCs, are not necessarily the measure of the driver. We need to look further. Alonso had faults that reduced his chances of WDCs, but he was still superb in the cockpit. The same with Piquet, if not more so with regards ability and weaknesses. Having 92 wins does not, on its own, make him a better driver than Schumacher.
That said, the records are littered with drivers who were predicted to go far and then just faded. I was a fan of H.H. Frentzen. Who? some will ask. And I’d say point made, yet he beat Schumacher occasionally in lower formulae.
I've seen drivers whom I'd suggest had more natural ability, such as Alonso and, particularly for me, Piquet, but Hamilton seemed to have that extra something: a willingness to learn. There does seem to be a certain lack of conceit, not always apparent I'd suggest. However, when he makes a mistake, or under-achieves, he does seem to do that thing that I find impressive (because it eludes me) of not repeating it. That’s not chance.
I've thoroughly enjoyed watching him over the years, even after he left 'my' team. He's turned into the perfect package, or as perfect as I've seen. The fact he doesn’t deliberately drive into other cars or block the chances of others to qualify is another positive.
That said, I wholeheartedly agree that crude stats, such as wins, poles and WDCs, are not necessarily the measure of the driver. We need to look further. Alonso had faults that reduced his chances of WDCs, but he was still superb in the cockpit. The same with Piquet, if not more so with regards ability and weaknesses. Having 92 wins does not, on its own, make him a better driver than Schumacher.
Life outcomes often depends on small decisions ?
If only the Euro Lottery winner hadn’t bought that that ticket on that day ?
If only I hadn’t gone to the pub that day I would never have met my wife ?
If only Senna had gone fishing that fateful day ?
So many ifs and buts but the outcome we have is the result of all the small decisions we make.
Hammy left Macca for whatever reason and the outcome is there for all to see.
We have no way of knowing which is the best University or which is the best driver but there is a complicated set of tests devised to try and quantify who is the best for that year (and whole career) . That’s the best we can do.
A very wealthy friend says “the money itself doesn’t matter to him but it’s a very good way of keeping score”
If only the Euro Lottery winner hadn’t bought that that ticket on that day ?
If only I hadn’t gone to the pub that day I would never have met my wife ?
If only Senna had gone fishing that fateful day ?
So many ifs and buts but the outcome we have is the result of all the small decisions we make.
Hammy left Macca for whatever reason and the outcome is there for all to see.
We have no way of knowing which is the best University or which is the best driver but there is a complicated set of tests devised to try and quantify who is the best for that year (and whole career) . That’s the best we can do.
A very wealthy friend says “the money itself doesn’t matter to him but it’s a very good way of keeping score”
DOCG said:
Schermerhorn said:
Mclaren have always flip-flopped between their design concepts and often ended up with egg on their face.
They're not a team - currently - I would back for anything apart from the odd lucky podium here and there. The Mercedes power next year wont change much either as all the engines are close and the regulations have tightend things up after years of being stable for the power trains.
Mercedes' dominance has been in sticking to a winning formula and small incremental improvements while other teams have been struggling to find a performance balance for years.
So...had he stayed at Mclaren he would have been stuck on 1 title and Rosberg would probably be considered as the GOAT.
If this correct (and I tend to think it is) then it is amazing how little influence driver ability actually has on who is considered the greatest. It also makes me wonder if Schumacher and others were really much better than other drivers during their era. They're not a team - currently - I would back for anything apart from the odd lucky podium here and there. The Mercedes power next year wont change much either as all the engines are close and the regulations have tightend things up after years of being stable for the power trains.
Mercedes' dominance has been in sticking to a winning formula and small incremental improvements while other teams have been struggling to find a performance balance for years.
So...had he stayed at Mclaren he would have been stuck on 1 title and Rosberg would probably be considered as the GOAT.
The only test is being in equal cars but in F1 is that always the case? Do team mates get equal cars? Is Vettel's Ferrari running the same parts as Leclrec's? Past history and Ferrari's legendary politics would suggest not.....
Remember how Tracing Point tried to stiff Perez at Mugello with no updates while Stroll got the new aero package (only to bin in...lol)
Schermerhorn said:
Talent can only take you so far in my opinion. It wont allow you to make up a multi second deficit to a faster car.
The question is whether it will allow you to get into the faster car. If Hamilton hadn't moved to Mercedes when he did, I don't think he'd have stayed at Mclaren once they started going down-hill. Whether he'd have ended up at Mercedes anyway or another top team, who knows.
I've often wondered this. But i think one things for sure. If he hadn't have left to go to Mercedes back then he almost certainly wouldn't still be at Mclaren now!
Perhaps he might have ended up at Ferrari and had the skill to usurp the Red Bull during their dominance. Who knows, the possibilities are endless
Perhaps he might have ended up at Ferrari and had the skill to usurp the Red Bull during their dominance. Who knows, the possibilities are endless
Love to see him drive one of the cars not doing so well, say the Ferrari, just for one race.
Maybe the drivers should all swap cars?
Saying that as someone who only watches as my girlfriend is an avid fan.
I also think they should have the guy that changes my tyres on my old Beemer doing the pit stops.
Car screams up, old fella in an oily boiler suit with a fag on the go makes his way out pulling his trusty wheeled jack.
Changes each tyre whilst cursing and tutting.
Sorry, just stuff I suggest to annoy her
Maybe the drivers should all swap cars?
Saying that as someone who only watches as my girlfriend is an avid fan.
I also think they should have the guy that changes my tyres on my old Beemer doing the pit stops.
Car screams up, old fella in an oily boiler suit with a fag on the go makes his way out pulling his trusty wheeled jack.
Changes each tyre whilst cursing and tutting.
Sorry, just stuff I suggest to annoy her
DOCG said:
It is amazing how much difference just one decision can make. Likewise if Schumacher hadn't joined Ferrari, or how Vettel would have been better in the long-term if he stuck it out with Red Bull.
Hence I don't think wins and titles are how a driver should be judged, Hamilton would be just as good a driver if he had made the mistake of staying at McLaren and spent most of his career in the midfield.
But what I think is more interesting is how 5 years ago no one compared Hamilton to Schumacher, even though he was just as good a driver then as he is now. Why do immaterial statistics make such a difference to how good a driver is perceived as being? Or is it that F1 fans simply cannot judge driver skill and thus rely on statistics as their only measure to judge how good each driver is?
Either way, I predict Hamilton's wins and titles records will never be broken since F1 will become unfeasible in the environmental future and cease to exist when people have lost interest in automobiles and attention spans further decrease.
Wins and titles are not the only measure but they are a useful measure. It needs to be combined with other factors, such as relative performance to team-mate and others, competition, regulations, etc.Hence I don't think wins and titles are how a driver should be judged, Hamilton would be just as good a driver if he had made the mistake of staying at McLaren and spent most of his career in the midfield.
But what I think is more interesting is how 5 years ago no one compared Hamilton to Schumacher, even though he was just as good a driver then as he is now. Why do immaterial statistics make such a difference to how good a driver is perceived as being? Or is it that F1 fans simply cannot judge driver skill and thus rely on statistics as their only measure to judge how good each driver is?
Either way, I predict Hamilton's wins and titles records will never be broken since F1 will become unfeasible in the environmental future and cease to exist when people have lost interest in automobiles and attention spans further decrease.
Don't forget also that drivers develop - they don't come in at the peak of their powers. 5 years ago, as I'm sure he'd admit, Hamilton was not as good as he is now.
It's the same with all sport - Messi isn't a better player than Ronaldo because he's scored more goals. But the number of goals he's scored is important. See also grand slams in tennis, tries in Rugby, etc.
Your last point is somewhat doom-mongery. F1 will change, but it's quite pessimistic to think it will become unfeasible, especially within a span of time that makes Hamilton's records unbeatable.
Remember, nobody thought Schumacher's records would be beaten but they have. If Verstappen (for example) gets into a consistently winning car, with 22 races per season (or more) there's every chance he could dominate and take the record by the time he's in his early 30's.
To answer the title of the thread, logic dictates he'd still have just the one title. But we'll never know.
Exige77 said:
Life outcomes often depends on small decisions ?
If only the Euro Lottery winner hadn’t bought that that ticket on that day ?
If only I hadn’t gone to the pub that day I would never have met my wife ?
If only Senna had gone fishing that fateful day ?
So many ifs and buts but the outcome we have is the result of all the small decisions we make.
Hammy left Macca for whatever reason and the outcome is there for all to see.
We have no way of knowing which is the best University or which is the best driver but there is a complicated set of tests devised to try and quantify who is the best for that year (and whole career) . That’s the best we can do.
A very wealthy friend says “the money itself doesn’t matter to him but it’s a very good way of keeping score”
I once heard Hell described as a place where we will be forced to see what would have happened if we had made better decisions. If only the Euro Lottery winner hadn’t bought that that ticket on that day ?
If only I hadn’t gone to the pub that day I would never have met my wife ?
If only Senna had gone fishing that fateful day ?
So many ifs and buts but the outcome we have is the result of all the small decisions we make.
Hammy left Macca for whatever reason and the outcome is there for all to see.
We have no way of knowing which is the best University or which is the best driver but there is a complicated set of tests devised to try and quantify who is the best for that year (and whole career) . That’s the best we can do.
A very wealthy friend says “the money itself doesn’t matter to him but it’s a very good way of keeping score”
That's a dreadful thought, especially so for some of the drivers who were perfectly capable of being in LH's place.
He would have 2008 and thats all.
They'd have chucked him when Ron was ousted, for one thing they wouldn't have been able to afford him and it was quite clear they wanted to "clean house".
At that point the best possible outcome would have been going to Ferrari, as unlikely as that may have been. Even if he did they've not had a WC winning car, Merc would have had Rosberg (who wouldn't have quit) with someone else quite competent in the other car (Hulkenberg maybe) and would have won all the titles anyway.
They'd have chucked him when Ron was ousted, for one thing they wouldn't have been able to afford him and it was quite clear they wanted to "clean house".
At that point the best possible outcome would have been going to Ferrari, as unlikely as that may have been. Even if he did they've not had a WC winning car, Merc would have had Rosberg (who wouldn't have quit) with someone else quite competent in the other car (Hulkenberg maybe) and would have won all the titles anyway.
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure that no one was predicting he was multiple WDC material, certainly not after his first, rather dramatic, season in the McLaren. He was alongside one of the greats and showed him a thing or two in his rookie season.
That said, the records are littered with drivers who were predicted to go far and then just faded. I was a fan of H.H. Frentzen. Who? some will ask. And I’d say point made, yet he beat Schumacher occasionally in lower formulae.
I've seen drivers whom I'd suggest had more natural ability, such as Alonso and, particularly for me, Piquet, but Hamilton seemed to have that extra something: a willingness to learn. There does seem to be a certain lack of conceit, not always apparent I'd suggest. However, when he makes a mistake, or under-achieves, he does seem to do that thing that I find impressive (because it eludes me) of not repeating it. That’s not chance.
I've thoroughly enjoyed watching him over the years, even after he left 'my' team. He's turned into the perfect package, or as perfect as I've seen. The fact he doesn’t deliberately drive into other cars or block the chances of others to qualify is another positive.
That said, I wholeheartedly agree that crude stats, such as wins, poles and WDCs, are not necessarily the measure of the driver. We need to look further. Alonso had faults that reduced his chances of WDCs, but he was still superb in the cockpit. The same with Piquet, if not more so with regards ability and weaknesses. Having 92 wins does not, on its own, make him a better driver than Schumacher.
There were definitely people saying he was multiple WDC material but no one was suggesting he was one of the best ever drivers. Which if true now would have been true then as well. That said, the records are littered with drivers who were predicted to go far and then just faded. I was a fan of H.H. Frentzen. Who? some will ask. And I’d say point made, yet he beat Schumacher occasionally in lower formulae.
I've seen drivers whom I'd suggest had more natural ability, such as Alonso and, particularly for me, Piquet, but Hamilton seemed to have that extra something: a willingness to learn. There does seem to be a certain lack of conceit, not always apparent I'd suggest. However, when he makes a mistake, or under-achieves, he does seem to do that thing that I find impressive (because it eludes me) of not repeating it. That’s not chance.
I've thoroughly enjoyed watching him over the years, even after he left 'my' team. He's turned into the perfect package, or as perfect as I've seen. The fact he doesn’t deliberately drive into other cars or block the chances of others to qualify is another positive.
That said, I wholeheartedly agree that crude stats, such as wins, poles and WDCs, are not necessarily the measure of the driver. We need to look further. Alonso had faults that reduced his chances of WDCs, but he was still superb in the cockpit. The same with Piquet, if not more so with regards ability and weaknesses. Having 92 wins does not, on its own, make him a better driver than Schumacher.
DOCG said:
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure that no one was predicting he was multiple WDC material, certainly not after his first, rather dramatic, season in the McLaren. He was alongside one of the greats and showed him a thing or two in his rookie season.
That said, the records are littered with drivers who were predicted to go far and then just faded. I was a fan of H.H. Frentzen. Who? some will ask. And I’d say point made, yet he beat Schumacher occasionally in lower formulae.
I've seen drivers whom I'd suggest had more natural ability, such as Alonso and, particularly for me, Piquet, but Hamilton seemed to have that extra something: a willingness to learn. There does seem to be a certain lack of conceit, not always apparent I'd suggest. However, when he makes a mistake, or under-achieves, he does seem to do that thing that I find impressive (because it eludes me) of not repeating it. That’s not chance.
I've thoroughly enjoyed watching him over the years, even after he left 'my' team. He's turned into the perfect package, or as perfect as I've seen. The fact he doesn’t deliberately drive into other cars or block the chances of others to qualify is another positive.
That said, I wholeheartedly agree that crude stats, such as wins, poles and WDCs, are not necessarily the measure of the driver. We need to look further. Alonso had faults that reduced his chances of WDCs, but he was still superb in the cockpit. The same with Piquet, if not more so with regards ability and weaknesses. Having 92 wins does not, on its own, make him a better driver than Schumacher.
There were definitely people saying he was multiple WDC material but no one was suggesting he was one of the best ever drivers. Which if true now would have been true then as well.That said, the records are littered with drivers who were predicted to go far and then just faded. I was a fan of H.H. Frentzen. Who? some will ask. And I’d say point made, yet he beat Schumacher occasionally in lower formulae.
I've seen drivers whom I'd suggest had more natural ability, such as Alonso and, particularly for me, Piquet, but Hamilton seemed to have that extra something: a willingness to learn. There does seem to be a certain lack of conceit, not always apparent I'd suggest. However, when he makes a mistake, or under-achieves, he does seem to do that thing that I find impressive (because it eludes me) of not repeating it. That’s not chance.
I've thoroughly enjoyed watching him over the years, even after he left 'my' team. He's turned into the perfect package, or as perfect as I've seen. The fact he doesn’t deliberately drive into other cars or block the chances of others to qualify is another positive.
That said, I wholeheartedly agree that crude stats, such as wins, poles and WDCs, are not necessarily the measure of the driver. We need to look further. Alonso had faults that reduced his chances of WDCs, but he was still superb in the cockpit. The same with Piquet, if not more so with regards ability and weaknesses. Having 92 wins does not, on its own, make him a better driver than Schumacher.
F1 drivers don't start as the finished article. You don't plateau in your ability at your first race.
Everyone knew he was good but he's got better since then.
Muzzer79 said:
Wins and titles are not the only measure but they are a useful measure. It needs to be combined with other factors, such as relative performance to team-mate and others, competition, regulations, etc.
Don't forget also that drivers develop - they don't come in at the peak of their powers. 5 years ago, as I'm sure he'd admit, Hamilton was not as good as he is now.
It's the same with all sport - Messi isn't a better player than Ronaldo because he's scored more goals. But the number of goals he's scored is important. See also grand slams in tennis, tries in Rugby, etc.
Your last point is somewhat doom-mongery. F1 will change, but it's quite pessimistic to think it will become unfeasible, especially within a span of time that makes Hamilton's records unbeatable.
Remember, nobody thought Schumacher's records would be beaten but they have. If Verstappen (for example) gets into a consistently winning car, with 22 races per season (or more) there's every chance he could dominate and take the record by the time he's in his early 30's.
To answer the title of the thread, logic dictates he'd still have just the one title. But we'll never know.
What would make Hamilton a significantly better driver now than 5 years ago? Surely the rate of increase declines as a career progresses, and by 2015 he had already been in F1 for 8 years. Don't forget also that drivers develop - they don't come in at the peak of their powers. 5 years ago, as I'm sure he'd admit, Hamilton was not as good as he is now.
It's the same with all sport - Messi isn't a better player than Ronaldo because he's scored more goals. But the number of goals he's scored is important. See also grand slams in tennis, tries in Rugby, etc.
Your last point is somewhat doom-mongery. F1 will change, but it's quite pessimistic to think it will become unfeasible, especially within a span of time that makes Hamilton's records unbeatable.
Remember, nobody thought Schumacher's records would be beaten but they have. If Verstappen (for example) gets into a consistently winning car, with 22 races per season (or more) there's every chance he could dominate and take the record by the time he's in his early 30's.
To answer the title of the thread, logic dictates he'd still have just the one title. But we'll never know.
I don't quite agree with the comparison to other sports, the real battle in F1 is always between teams developing the cars. But for marketing purposes the media coverage likes to pretend the drivers make a much bigger difference, casual fans would probably be less interested if they realised that the vast majority of performance differential was based on the cars.
The goal of most drivers is to win the world championship. Some are satisfied with doing that only once. Others remain motivated to win multiple times, given the opportunity.
Hamilton has had opportunities and taken them. This year he looks likely to equal the most successful driver ever in Formula 1. That's not an accident. It's also not all his own work, because formula 1 is a team sport as much as rubgy or football is, but he's part of that team and he puts in the performances that get the results.
You can't say its all about the driver, and you can't say it's all about the car. It's the combination of both, and the team making the race decisions, that win races and beat the other teams.
IMO you can rate Hamilton on his number of titles and race wins as much as you can rate Messi on his number of goals or Pele on his number of world cup medals. None could achieve those records on their own. They need a team around them good enough to give them the opportunities to shine, but other footballers will tell you Messi (and Pele) are great players. Other drivers will acknowledge that Hamilton is a great driver - including Rosberg. Schumacher's team mates say he was incredibly good too.
Any great sportsperson will have moments where they made the decisions that put them where they are now, same for any great entrepreneur, and for each one there will be dozens that made one random decision and didn't make it big. Greatness in all areas of life is measured on those what if decisions. For the chances he's been given, and managed to make for himself or luck into or however you want to see it, Hamilton has done his bit and made the most of them.
And no, he wouldn't still be at McLaren. If he had been happy there Merc would have had no chance to take him. He may be in a Merc by now, or he may have been at Ferrari, or Red Bull, and then the future would have been.... well your guess is as good as mine but IMO he was never going to be a Hulk or even a Raikkonen. At worst, he was going to be an Alonso, a driver recognized as being one of the greats but for a knack of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Talent shows even in Formula 1.
Hamilton has had opportunities and taken them. This year he looks likely to equal the most successful driver ever in Formula 1. That's not an accident. It's also not all his own work, because formula 1 is a team sport as much as rubgy or football is, but he's part of that team and he puts in the performances that get the results.
You can't say its all about the driver, and you can't say it's all about the car. It's the combination of both, and the team making the race decisions, that win races and beat the other teams.
IMO you can rate Hamilton on his number of titles and race wins as much as you can rate Messi on his number of goals or Pele on his number of world cup medals. None could achieve those records on their own. They need a team around them good enough to give them the opportunities to shine, but other footballers will tell you Messi (and Pele) are great players. Other drivers will acknowledge that Hamilton is a great driver - including Rosberg. Schumacher's team mates say he was incredibly good too.
Any great sportsperson will have moments where they made the decisions that put them where they are now, same for any great entrepreneur, and for each one there will be dozens that made one random decision and didn't make it big. Greatness in all areas of life is measured on those what if decisions. For the chances he's been given, and managed to make for himself or luck into or however you want to see it, Hamilton has done his bit and made the most of them.
And no, he wouldn't still be at McLaren. If he had been happy there Merc would have had no chance to take him. He may be in a Merc by now, or he may have been at Ferrari, or Red Bull, and then the future would have been.... well your guess is as good as mine but IMO he was never going to be a Hulk or even a Raikkonen. At worst, he was going to be an Alonso, a driver recognized as being one of the greats but for a knack of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Talent shows even in Formula 1.
DOCG said:
What would make Hamilton a significantly better driver now than 5 years ago? Surely the rate of increase declines as a career progresses, and by 2015 he had already been in F1 for 8 years.
Er, experience? Driving F1 cars is by no means all about natural talent.
Talent is honed through hard work and practice.
If you apply yourself to anything with enough focus and commitment, physical limitations aside, you will be better at it than you were 5 years ago.
Muzzer79 said:
You're not allowing for improvement between 2007 and 2020.
F1 drivers don't start as the finished article. You don't plateau in your ability at your first race.
Everyone knew he was good but he's got better since then.
I think that's bee the most fascinating thing about him; the way he's improved. Take this last race. He said the back broke away early on. He was in the lead, and the Hamilton of old would have battled with both VB and SC. Instead, he moved over and almost allowed them to pass. No significant challenge. The commentators, both on Sky and Radio 5 Live, reckoned he must have a problem, which he did, but not what they thought.F1 drivers don't start as the finished article. You don't plateau in your ability at your first race.
Everyone knew he was good but he's got better since then.
Once up to speed, or rather temperature, he drove steadily, passing Sainz fairly early on but then husbanded his tyres for a few laps before going for the lead. Lap 20 and he was through. Bottas said after that he was looking after his engine. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Hamilton was as well.
It was a sublime demonstration of a driver at the top of his craft. It was great to see, but it would have been better to have him challenged, by by whom?
And I've seen most of his races, from the first time he graced F1 in the McL.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff