How many titles would Hamilton have if he stayed at McLaren?
Discussion
kiseca said:
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.
The point I am making is if he is that good, then he would still be greatest driver if he had declined the offer from Mercedes and thus (quite likely) finished with only one title. It would not make him any less of driver if he did not have the same luck of 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.
It seems you only judge by end results, rather than the underlying talent. I personally think Mika Hakkinen was as good as or better than Schumacher.
Derek Smith said:
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.
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.
I am trying to have a rational discussion about the way in which drivers are judged, please take your race commentary to a more relevant thread, 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.
Schermerhorn said:
had he stayed at Mclaren he would have been stuck on 1 title and Rosberg would probably be considered as the GOAT.
We now know that it would've been for Rosberg and Hulkenberg to trade titles from 2014-How different it could've been
But would Mercedes have remained in the sport for so long and developed and converted so unflinchingly without Hamilton?
DOCG said:
The point I am making is if he is that good, then he would still be greatest driver if he had declined the offer from Mercedes and thus (quite likely) finished with only one title.
But that's impossible to know.The kid who lives next door to me could be the greatest football player that's ever lived, but if he didn't apply himself, love the game, get a contract and gain success then we'd never know. He would then be judged, partly, by that success.
There are a fair few drivers who "could" or "should" have been WDC or multiple WDC but never were, and never will be. It is not always based upon sheer talent especially these days.
Would Lewis have always managed to obtain a top seat? I rather think so to be fair, he seems (rightly!) rated up and down the paddock...
Would Lewis have always managed to obtain a top seat? I rather think so to be fair, he seems (rightly!) rated up and down the paddock...
DOCG said:
kiseca said:
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.
The point I am making is if he is that good, then he would still be greatest driver if he had declined the offer from Mercedes and thus (quite likely) finished with only one title. It would not make him any less of driver if he did not have the same luck of 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.
It seems you only judge by end results, rather than the underlying talent. I personally think Mika Hakkinen was as good as or better than Schumacher.
Jasandjules said:
There are a fair few drivers who "could" or "should" have been WDC or multiple WDC but never were, and never will be. It is not always based upon sheer talent especially these days.
Would Lewis have always managed to obtain a top seat? I rather think so to be fair, he seems (rightly!) rated up and down the paddock...
There is a big difference between a top seat and a Mercedes (or early 2000's Ferrari) level dominance of seat.Would Lewis have always managed to obtain a top seat? I rather think so to be fair, he seems (rightly!) rated up and down the paddock...
Muzzer79 said:
DOCG said:
The point I am making is if he is that good, then he would still be greatest driver if he had declined the offer from Mercedes and thus (quite likely) finished with only one title.
But that's impossible to know.The kid who lives next door to me could be the greatest football player that's ever lived, but if he didn't apply himself, love the game, get a contract and gain success then we'd never know. He would then be judged, partly, by that success.
DOCG said:
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?
I think you're being quite obtuse and frankly underestimating the intelligence of people within F1 and F1 fans. Perhaps conversely it is you who is oversimplifying this debate by focusing so much upon statistics?
There is plenty of content out there discussing what separates the renowned 'legendary' drivers from the merely 'great' ones.
You are willfully ignoring an observed commonality between Senna, Schumacher and Hamilton for instance- their renowned focus and work ethic.
First person witness testimonies to their greatness exists, just as it does for Jim Clark if you are around people of that vintage
Success is rarely a coincidence. Sustained success...
DOCG said:
There is a big difference between a top seat and a Mercedes (or early 2000's Ferrari) level dominance of seat.
Very true. But the bottom line is who gets the offers for them. IN the case of Mercedes, as I understand it they actively head hunted Lewis to the extent Niki and Toto went to Lewis' mum's house and had a chat around the kitchen table etc. Now, to my mind to get people that senior in a team to do that means you are pretty damn special and they knew it. Being realistic, the same point can be made in respect of salaries offered/paid to drivers. Why are some paid mega bucks whilst others have to pay to get a seat.................... The teams have the data, they know so much about the drivers etc it is difficult to suggest they are totally wrong about Lewis and some of the other drivers - for example I am rather expecting to see Vettel trounce Lance next season.....
Makes one wonder why all those other drivers at Mercedes Benz didn't just stick around and take all those titles and championships for themselves too. After all, fish in a barrel.
Schumacher was number 1 at Ferrari when they dominated F1, the odds were always stacked in his favour over the number 2 driver. No one questions his entitlement to his championships or suggests it was all the car or that it was sub par number 2 drivers.
I don't think Hamilton has ever been a number 1 driver. Yet he has still won and seen off a significant number of drivers inside his own team.
Big clubs attract the best football players due to the money they have and they likley ability to win. Should their wins be ignored as a metric, perhaps it should be on which player scores the most goals or which goalkeeper saves the most attempts?
It's the metric that has been used throughout the history of F1. Why is it an issue now?
Schumacher was number 1 at Ferrari when they dominated F1, the odds were always stacked in his favour over the number 2 driver. No one questions his entitlement to his championships or suggests it was all the car or that it was sub par number 2 drivers.
I don't think Hamilton has ever been a number 1 driver. Yet he has still won and seen off a significant number of drivers inside his own team.
Big clubs attract the best football players due to the money they have and they likley ability to win. Should their wins be ignored as a metric, perhaps it should be on which player scores the most goals or which goalkeeper saves the most attempts?
It's the metric that has been used throughout the history of F1. Why is it an issue now?
Jasandjules said:
Very true. But the bottom line is who gets the offers for them. IN the case of Mercedes, as I understand it they actively head hunted Lewis to the extent Niki and Toto went to Lewis' mum's house and had a chat around the kitchen table etc. Now, to my mind to get people that senior in a team to do that means you are pretty damn special and they knew it.
Mercedes had an option on Hulkenberg in case Hamilton didn't jump from McLaren.Hulk v Rosberg would have been fun too
Only 1, you need a car with championship winning potential before you can actually win a championship, pretty simple really.
But Hamilton has been impressive and clearly top tier from day 1 of his F1 career. Many people, myself included, would still consider him one of the best drivers they had ever seen (including Schumacher) regardless of the amount of championships he won.
Similarly, if Max Verstappen never wins a championship I would still consider him one of the best drivers I had ever witnessed.
But Hamilton has been impressive and clearly top tier from day 1 of his F1 career. Many people, myself included, would still consider him one of the best drivers they had ever seen (including Schumacher) regardless of the amount of championships he won.
Similarly, if Max Verstappen never wins a championship I would still consider him one of the best drivers I had ever witnessed.
If he stayed at McLaren then he wouldn't be Lewis Hamilton, because he didn't!
Lewis Hamilton behaved in such a way as to catch Lauda's eye - who was dead set on having him at Mercedes when the team came together. Lewis was also a person able to trust what the old Jedi said and put his faith in the right person. Along with his commitment and determination.
Lauda & co may also have mentioned that Mercedes were about to drop over £1bn in to their F1 programme and that the rest of the paddock would be left floundering...
The point being that everything that made Lewis 'Lewis' up until his success at McLaren is the same stuff that made him leave at the right time and go to the right place. If he had stayed he wouldn't be the same person.
Lewis Hamilton behaved in such a way as to catch Lauda's eye - who was dead set on having him at Mercedes when the team came together. Lewis was also a person able to trust what the old Jedi said and put his faith in the right person. Along with his commitment and determination.
Lauda & co may also have mentioned that Mercedes were about to drop over £1bn in to their F1 programme and that the rest of the paddock would be left floundering...
The point being that everything that made Lewis 'Lewis' up until his success at McLaren is the same stuff that made him leave at the right time and go to the right place. If he had stayed he wouldn't be the same person.
DOCG said:
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.
Generally if you've made it onto an F1 grid especially in the last 20 years you're damn fast regardless of what car you're in. Between the very quickest drivers and the slowest if they were all in equal cars I'd bet there isn't much more than half a second over a lap. DOCG said:
Derek Smith said:
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.
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.
I am trying to have a rational discussion about the way in which drivers are judged, please take your race commentary to a more relevant thread, 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.
It's been obvious from the time PH started that you can't compare the abilities of drivers from different eras for multiple reasons. It's been done to death. How does one judge a specific driver? By seeing how he drives? Well, maybe. It’s a better way than most that have been put forward.
The only way to compare driver A with driver B is by putting them in identical cars and letting them loose in a race. Just timing them is pointless. Even then, with the variables of the other drivers, changing conditions, etc, it’s probably wrong to draw a conclusion from one race.
If we can’t compare drivers, how can we judge them? Against a norm? Against a set of standards? By personality? We can’t accurately judge drivers. Of course we can’t.
We can say that Hamilton is most likely to win the next race and give the statistical, not betting, odds but that doesn’t mean he’s the best out there. After all, he’s in the fastest and most reliable car on the grid. Does his total number of wins help us? Other than saying he’s consistent, an essential for a good driver, no, as he’s often, but not always, been in fast cars.
The point of an F1 racing driver is his ability to race. The skill is multi-faceted. If one is to judge them, one must know what weight to put on each of these facets; an impossible ask. Take Kimi. He chose softs. He got his car up 10 places in the first lap in a brilliant display of car control and experience. Yet where did he finish? He probably would have been in more or less the same place if he’d started on meds and just passed those on meds. And he’d have taken fewer risks. So how should we judge his decision? Foolhardy, thoroughly entertaining, pointless air-time grabbing? We can’t. All we can do is enjoy it.
We can judge specific abilities I suppose. But a driver is not merely a spreadsheet, with plusses here, negatives there, and a total at the bottom.
If there’s no objective way of measuring a driver’s ability, we fall back on subjective. But prejudice comes in there, and it is impossible to eradicate. I’ve followed F1 since my first GP, the 1966 British. Does that give me greater ability to judge drivers? Probably not as my decision-making will be cluttered. Does that mean someone who started just this season is better? Probably not as how can they judge Hamilton without his history?
There’s no real point in trying to judge individual drivers, either against others – too many variables – or against the norm – too many variables. The best bet is to enjoy the racing.
You can get snapshots of how a driver races – see my previous post – but does it mean anything? Probably not.
How many titles would Hamilton have had if he stayed at McL? We'll never know, but probably just the one. Is it a way to judge his ability as a racing driver? Of course not. That answers the question.
I think Hamilton is the most complete F1 driver I have ever seen, and I've seen a few. Can I justify it? Of course not.
croyde said:
Love to see him drive one of the cars not doing so well
He did in 2009 and he still won 2 races that year.To answer the original question, the answer is clearly 1 because they haven't been anywhere near the top since Lewis left, and not even Hamilton's talent could have made up that performance shortfall in much the same way Alonso struggled there.
It's all pie in the sky though as there is no way Lewis would still be at McLaren in 2020 after the years of dismal performance they have endured. He would have always been sought after for the other top seats in the sport, be that in a Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull. He was fortunate that he backed the right horse when he did, and it wasn't a prancing one.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff