Lewis Hamilton G.O.A.T. ?

[Gary C]

Taz46 said:

Any one else agree with me that Lewis has the ability to be regarded as the greatest of all time? Seems to me he can get the car near or on the front regardless whether the cars 100 % (with the exception of the beginning of last year but let's face it the mclaren was a complete dog of a car) most talented driver on the grid my opinion, what's yours!?

Certainly don't agree

Greatest of all time is a bks statement with absolutely no value.

but I do agree that he has proved to be the best of his time.

[Stan the Bat]

macdeb said:

Taz46 said:

Any one else agree with me that Lewis has the ability to be regarded as the greatest of all time? Seems to me he can get the car near or on the front regardless whether the cars 100 % (with the exception of the beginning of last year but let's face it the mclaren was a complete dog of a car) most talented driver on the grid my opinion, what's yours!?

Absolutely spot on. He is the GOAT, he didn't cheat a championship ala Schumacker either. Why do we always shoot down our own heroes? I don't get it. S,Vettel's recent comments don't go down well either. LH44 beat you, get over it.

Edited by macdeb on Wednesday 25th November 17:13

Edited by macdeb on Wednesday 25th November 17:14

What were Vettel's recent comments ?

[bobbo89]

Gary C said:

Certainly don't agree

Greatest of all time is a bks statement with absolutely no value.

but I do agree that he has proved to be the best of his time.

Completely agree. I hate the GOAT thing, complete load of bks!

[Derek Smith]

kiseca said:

But on here, Prost isn't as highly regarded as Lauda

Prost wasn't fun to watch.

He came over as bland to me, and all the hype in Motor Sport and the like about his intellect seemed a bit targetted at the time.

Senna was a thrill a minute and I think Prost suffered in comparison. There was nothing to criticise Lauda for, if we ignore some of his comments about Hunt, and there was the coming back from death's door to be admired.

[TheDeuce]

Derek Smith said:

kiseca said:

But on here, Prost isn't as highly regarded as Lauda

Prost wasn't fun to watch.

He came over as bland to me, and all the hype in Motor Sport and the like about his intellect seemed a bit targetted at the time.

Senna was a thrill a minute and I think Prost suffered in comparison. There was nothing to criticise Lauda for, if we ignore some of his comments about Hunt, and there was the coming back from death's door to be admired.

It's true, it's very easy to like a chap who returns to racing even after their face catching fire and their ear falling off. How can that not be respected? What a legend.

And then years later he becomes a key figure in setting up a certain team called Mercedes, aligns the talent perfectly, convinces Lewis to come on board...

[Halmyre]

TheDeuce said:

Derek Smith said:

kiseca said:

But on here, Prost isn't as highly regarded as Lauda

Prost wasn't fun to watch.

He came over as bland to me, and all the hype in Motor Sport and the like about his intellect seemed a bit targetted at the time.

Senna was a thrill a minute and I think Prost suffered in comparison. There was nothing to criticise Lauda for, if we ignore some of his comments about Hunt, and there was the coming back from death's door to be admired.

It's true, it's very easy to like a chap who returns to racing even after their face catching fire and their ear falling off. How can that not be respected? What a legend.



And then years later he becomes a key figure in setting up a certain team called Mercedes, aligns the talent perfectly, convinces Lewis to come on board...

Let's not dwell on his tenure of the Jaguar team. Although that wasn't entirely down to him.

[mattikake]

Derek Smith said:

kiseca said:

But on here, Prost isn't as highly regarded as Lauda

Prost wasn't fun to watch.

He came over as bland to me, and all the hype in Motor Sport and the like about his intellect seemed a bit targetted at the time.

Senna was a thrill a minute and I think Prost suffered in comparison. There was nothing to criticise Lauda for, if we ignore some of his comments about Hunt, and there was the coming back from death's door to be admired.

Yeah it's a bizarre thing how unmemorable Prost is.

He had charges from pitlane starts to finish 2nd. Mexico 90 started 14th and won. He made double overtakes, overtakes on leaders using backmarkers (even on Senna in France 88 easily as opportunistic and aggressive as Mansell in Hungary but no-one talks about it, ever). He had hard race-long battles like with Jones in Germany 81 when he had an inferior car (highly recommended to watch that entire race, not highlights). South Africa 82 lead, got a puncture, dropped to 6th with about 20laps to go and still managed to win on merit. And was involved in the greatest rivalry F1 has known.

All the boxes ticked for a great entertainer.

There are a lot of races that were truly great for all manner of reasons... but no-one ever talks about them. Why is that?

NB: I reserve the right for my memory to gets a few dates wrong! ... because no-one ever remembers Prost properly.

Edited by mattikake on Friday 27th November 11:39

[SpudLink]

mattikake said:

Yeah it's a bizarre thing how unmemorable Prost is.

He had charges from pitlane starts to finish 2nd. Mexico 90 started 14th and won. He made double overtakes, overtakes on leaders using backmarkers (even on Senna in France 88 easily as opportunistic and aggressive as Mansell in Hungary but no-one talks about it, ever). He had hard race-long battles like with Jones in Germany 81 when he had an inferior car (highly recommended to watch that entire race, not highlights). South Africa 82 lead, got a puncture, dropped to 6th with about 20laps to go and still managed to win on merit. And was involved in the greatest rivalry F1 has known.

All the boxes ticked for a great entertainer.

There are a lot of races that were truly great for all manner of reasons... but no-one ever talks about them. Why is that?

NB: I reserve the right for my memory to gets a few dates wrong! ... because no-one ever remembers Prost properly.

Edited by mattikake on Friday 27th November 11:39

Thanks for that.

I’ve never understood why Prost isn’t regarded as well as other multiple champions.

[angrymoby]

dibbers006 said:

Because for Brits, he was neither the 'underdog', nor quite in the category of panto villain.

Plus he wasn't from a country we can root for.

people forget just how good Prost was, especially when you look at the team mates he had & beat:

Lauda (1985); Rosberg (1986); Senna (1989); Mansell (1990); Hill (1993)

he was also only 5 1/2 pts off another x3 WDC's

the biggest minus for me, was his wet weather ability (although i suspect this wasn't due to lack of talent, more of a self preservation thing)

[Halmyre]

mattikake said:

Derek Smith said:

kiseca said:

But on here, Prost isn't as highly regarded as Lauda

Prost wasn't fun to watch.

He came over as bland to me, and all the hype in Motor Sport and the like about his intellect seemed a bit targetted at the time.

Senna was a thrill a minute and I think Prost suffered in comparison. There was nothing to criticise Lauda for, if we ignore some of his comments about Hunt, and there was the coming back from death's door to be admired.

Yeah it's a bizarre thing how unmemorable Prost is.

He had charges from pitlane starts to finish 2nd. Mexico 90 started 14th and won. He made double overtakes, overtakes on leaders using backmarkers (even on Senna in France 88 easily as opportunistic and aggressive as Mansell in Hungary but no-one talks about it, ever). He had hard race-long battles like with Jones in Germany 81 when he had an inferior car (highly recommended to watch that entire race, not highlights). South Africa 82 lead, got a puncture, dropped to 6th with about 20laps to go and still managed to win on merit. And was involved in the greatest rivalry F1 has known.

All the boxes ticked for a great entertainer.

There are a lot of races that were truly great for all manner of reasons... but no-one ever talks about them. Why is that?

NB: I reserve the right for my memory to gets a few dates wrong! ... because no-one ever remembers Prost properly.

Edited by mattikake on Friday 27th November 11:39

And he overtook Stewart's record of GP wins, after a gap of 14 years. He then went on to set a record that would take another 13 years to fall.

[paulguitar]

angrymoby said:

the biggest minus for me, was his wet weather ability (although i suspect this wasn't due to lack of talent, more of a self preservation thing)

Apparently, Prost was significantly affected by being involved in Pironi's 1982 wet-weather accident at Hockenheim. It must have been very unpleasant, when Nelson Piquet saw the aftermath, he spontaneously threw up.

The other thing with Prost was that he was so smooth he was somewhat unspectacular to watch, despite being very quick. I've read that team members including Patrick Head and Frank Williams were literally unsure whether or not he was on a hot lap or an in lap during quali, such was his amazing smoothness.

[mattikake]

angrymoby said:

dibbers006 said:

Because for Brits, he was neither the 'underdog', nor quite in the category of panto villain.

Plus he wasn't from a country we can root for.

people forget just how good Prost was, especially when you look at the team mates he had & beat:

Lauda (1985); Rosberg (1986); Senna (1989); Mansell (1990); Hill (1993)

he was also only 5 1/2 pts off another x3 WDC's

the biggest minus for me, was his wet weather ability (although i suspect this wasn't due to lack of talent, more of a self preservation thing)

Yeah, easy to forget!

Iirc Prosts whole racing ethic completely changed after the crash with pironi that ended his career which I think was a wet practice session?. If you look at Germany 81 for e.g. he was defending very aggressively. Totally unlike the Prost after 82 and nothing too dissimilar to how Senna drove.

Edit, haha beaten to it!

Edited by mattikake on Friday 27th November 12:55

[nickfrog]

dibbers006 said:

Plus he wasn't from a country we can root for.

He was though

[C350Akra]

bobbo89 said:

Gary C said:

Certainly don't agree

Greatest of all time is a bks statement with absolutely no value.

but I do agree that he has proved to be the best of his time.

Completely agree. I hate the GOAT thing, complete load of bks!

Agree that GOAT cannot be determined, how about making it MSOAT (most successful of all time)?

[kiseca]

angrymoby said:

people forget just how good Prost was, especially when you look at the team mates he had & beat:

Lauda (1985); Rosberg (1986); Senna (1989); Mansell (1990); Hill (1993)

he was also only 5 1/2 pts off another x3 WDC's

the biggest minus for me, was his wet weather ability (although i suspect this wasn't due to lack of talent, more of a self preservation thing)

According to Prost himself, you are right. In the book "Senna vs Prost", Prost is quoted as saying that after a couple of awful incidents in rain, one being Pironi's crash and I can't remember the other, he changed his approach to racing. After seeing Pironi still in the car (it was Prost's car that Didier couldn't see in the spray, and then hit) Prost considered retiring altogether. He decided to carry on, but race his way, putting safety first and going fast enough to win but no faster. He also says that before the two incidents, he almost preferred racing in the rain because he felt he had an advantage in it.

He pulled out of the Australian GP in 1989, the last race of the season, because he felt the conditions were too wet to race safely. A bit like Lauda at Fuji, except Prost didn't have the world championship on the line, and it was his last race for McLaren, so a much easier decision for him than it would have been for Niki.

I've seen a quote, I think it was from Jo Ramirez, probably apocryphal to demonstrate a point: He said that when Prost was practicing, they said he must tell them when he's going to do a hot lap because they can't tell from just watching him and might miss it! That was a way of saying that he was so smooth that he didn't look fast even when he was the fastest guy on the track.

I think his reputation was tainted a little by sharing the limelight with Senna, for one, and then made worse by the Senna movie, which the producers have openly admitted has been selectively edited to make Prost appear as the villain, because every movie needs one! That movie was terribly unjust to the man. Most of the Prost vs Senna arguments I've read over the last few years sound like they have been taken straight from that movie. Also, many think that he got a helping hand from Balestre, both being French, but from what I've read, the two men didn't even like eachother.

I don't think Prost was the nicest chap out of the car, I think there is little doubt he was cunning and political, but he was a real gentleman behind the wheel, always concerned about the wellbeing of the other drivers and shocked by Senna's lack of concern for their safety. For me, ironically, Hamilton reminds me a lot more of Prost than of Senna or Schumacher, more so now than ever, in how he drives a car, how he considers a race, how he races with other drivers, and how he wins.

[nickfrog]

^^^^^ fascinating stuff, thanks for the post kiseca.

[IforB]

kiseca said:

angrymoby said:

people forget just how good Prost was, especially when you look at the team mates he had & beat:

Lauda (1985); Rosberg (1986); Senna (1989); Mansell (1990); Hill (1993)

he was also only 5 1/2 pts off another x3 WDC's

the biggest minus for me, was his wet weather ability (although i suspect this wasn't due to lack of talent, more of a self preservation thing)

According to Prost himself, you are right. In the book "Senna vs Prost", Prost is quoted as saying that after a couple of awful incidents in rain, one being Pironi's crash and I can't remember the other, he changed his approach to racing. After seeing Pironi still in the car (it was Prost's car that Didier couldn't see in the spray, and then hit) Prost considered retiring altogether. He decided to carry on, but race his way, putting safety first and going fast enough to win but no faster. He also says that before the two incidents, he almost preferred racing in the rain because he felt he had an advantage in it.

He pulled out of the Australian GP in 1989, the last race of the season, because he felt the conditions were too wet to race safely. A bit like Lauda at Fuji, except Prost didn't have the world championship on the line, and it was his last race for McLaren, so a much easier decision for him than it would have been for Niki.

I've seen a quote, I think it was from Jo Ramirez, probably apocryphal to demonstrate a point: He said that when Prost was practicing, they said he must tell them when he's going to do a hot lap because they can't tell from just watching him and might miss it! That was a way of saying that he was so smooth that he didn't look fast even when he was the fastest guy on the track.

I think his reputation was tainted a little by sharing the limelight with Senna, for one, and then made worse by the Senna movie, which the producers have openly admitted has been selectively edited to make Prost appear as the villain, because every movie needs one! That movie was terribly unjust to the man. Most of the Prost vs Senna arguments I've read over the last few years sound like they have been taken straight from that movie. Also, many think that he got a helping hand from Balestre, both being French, but from what I've read, the two men didn't even like eachother.

I don't think Prost was the nicest chap out of the car, I think there is little doubt he was cunning and political, but he was a real gentleman behind the wheel, always concerned about the wellbeing of the other drivers and shocked by Senna's lack of concern for their safety. For me, ironically, Hamilton reminds me a lot more of Prost than of Senna or Schumacher, more so now than ever, in how he drives a car, how he considers a race, how he races with other drivers, and how he wins.

Great post and I agree almost entirely. The only thing I'd say, is that Hamilton reminds me of a mixture of Prost and Senna, but with the work rate of Schumacher. He has the car handling ability of Senna, allied to the astonishing speed and ability to go fast whilst looking slow that Prost did, then his process of self-improvement in his driving, reminds me of how driven Schumacher was.

Obviously this is my take on it, but for me it just shows how complete a driver Hamilton is. All the other "greats" mentioned had flaws, he seems to combine the best bits of all of them, without the negative bits.

[kiseca]

I think Prost's record was also a victim of the points scoring system at the time, where a driver's best 11 results from 16 races counted. It favoured wins over consistent finishing, and while Prost's record shows that he was pretty good at winning, his real strength was his ability to keep picking up points. He lost the 1988 title to that system and was in danger of losing the 1989 one to it too. Not saying he should have been 1988 champion but rather that the rules at the time made Senna's strengths more valuable than Prost's that year.

The descriptions I hear of him as a driver from those in the circus do have some similarities with Jim Clark. Deceptive speed from a smooth style, a very precise driver, and also one with a reputation for being very gentle on the car, mechanically sympathetic and also showing lower than expected wear on components like brakes and tyres.

In 1986 his team mate at McLaren was Keke Rosberg. Keke was leading the last race until he retired with mechanical failure - or possibly a puncture. I think it was Jo Ramirez who said, after the 1986 Adelaide race, that the brakes on Rosbergs car didn't look like they'd have lasted to the end of the race, while those on Prost's car looked like they had enough left in them to do a whole other race. And speaking of his speed, after his season at McLaren, Rosberg predicted that Prost was going to destroy Senna in 1988. He got that one a bit wrong as it turned out, but it showed the impression Prost had made on the ex champion.

I think a lot of my anecdotes come from the book Senna vs Prost (Malcolm Folley). A good read if you're interested in that rivalry. A lot of content comes from an interview with Prost but there's also plenty from Jo Ramirez, Martin Brundle, John Hogan (I think I called him Paul Hogan in another thread... oops!) and a lot of other drivers and team members from the era. The same author also published a book about the Monaco Grand Prix, and one of the rivalry between Borg and McEnroe. All of them are full of interesting anecdotes. And no, I'm not his mate or publisher

IforB said:

Great post and I agree almost entirely. The only thing I'd say, is that Hamilton reminds me of a mixture of Prost and Senna, but with the work rate of Schumacher. He has the car handling ability of Senna, allied to the astonishing speed and ability to go fast whilst looking slow that Prost did, then his process of self-improvement in his driving, reminds me of how driven Schumacher was.

Obviously this is my take on it, but for me it just shows how complete a driver Hamilton is. All the other "greats" mentioned had flaws, he seems to combine the best bits of all of them, without the negative bits.

I agree, particularly about the flaws. Schumacher was always the most complete driver I've ever seen, until finally after that win at the Turkish GP, I've finally come around to the idea that Hamilton has all the tools too. I've always been a fan because I remembered him from an article in Fast Lane magazine when he was still karting, and I liked his consistency and speed, a rare combination, from 2007, but until this year I've always thought Schumacher had the edge for tactical ability and Hamilton was more reliant on the brains behind the pitwall. This season has finally changed my mind on that one too.

Edited by kiseca on Friday 27th November 16:40

[mattikake]

kiseca said:

I agree, particularly about the flaws. Schumacher was always the most complete driver I've ever seen, until finally after that win at the Turkish GP, I've finally come around to the idea that Hamilton has all the tools too. I've always been a fan because I remembered him from an article in Fast Lane magazine when he was still karting, and I liked his consistency and speed, a rare combination, from 2007, but until this year I've always thought Schumacher had the edge for tactical ability and Hamilton was more reliant on the brains behind the pitwall. This season has finally changed my mind on that one too.

Edited by kiseca on Friday 27th November 16:40

Hamilton has always had a tactical mind right from the formula Renault days. I believe Sutil in desperation started copying his setups in F3 euro series and he was better but still no match. And remember that gp2 Turkey race Hamilton had the confidence to go against his team's advice and go for a low downforce setup. Rosberg had to have a mechanics swap and a lot of studying to have his chance in 2016. Bottas too only got up to speed by copying Hamilton's lap and setup which made fir an immediate improvement in quali pace but doesn't work when adapting on the fly in a race.

He has an intelligence for it that goes under the radar.

But the thing that always stood out for me was Hamilton's consistency right from 2003. He would always pick up the points and this is what he did in gp2 (only 5 wins, 1 pole remember) and the first half of 2007 to destabilising effect, until up to speed with, then out pacing Alonso. Was it 9 podiums in a row, out of the box? 2008 less wins than Massa = more consistency. Even in his early career, it was wins/podiums that usually out-stripped poles.

It wasn't his race pace, single lap pace (which I actually think is his weakest trait) or his battling skills. I don't think he has developed a Prost type of consistency, it was always there (apart from that one f1 season when he suffered with that break up with shirtslinger.) the only thing that has changed is many people have only just started noticing.

Edited by mattikake on Friday 27th November 18:55

[entropy]

mattikake said:

Yeah, easy to forget!

Iirc Prosts whole racing ethic completely changed after the crash with pironi that ended his career which I think was a wet practice session?. If you look at Germany 81 for e.g. he was defending very aggressively. Totally unlike the Prost after 82 and nothing too dissimilar to how Senna drove.

Edit, haha beaten to it!

Edited by mattikake on Friday 27th November 12:55

1986 Australian GP. After he pits for tyres early in the race due to a puncture he has nothing to lose and drives with maximum attack, on the ragged edge; Mansell is doing enough for podium/points finish.

There are probably others as well from the mid-80s onwards. He rarely raced on the ragged edge because he nailed the race set up, refined his driving technique to go with it and made it look so easy, effortless and boring. Mexico '90 would be a case in point - it is best remembered for Mansell's overtake on Berger, not Prost's great drive.

kiseca said:

I think his reputation was tainted a little by sharing the limelight with Senna, for one, and then made worse by the Senna movie, which the producers have openly admitted has been selectively edited to make Prost appear as the villain, because every movie needs one! That movie was terribly unjust to the man. Most of the Prost vs Senna arguments I've read over the last few years sound like they have been taken straight from that movie. Also, many think that he got a helping hand from Balestre, both being French, but from what I've read, the two men didn't even like eachother.

I don't think Prost was the nicest chap out of the car, I think there is little doubt he was cunning and political, but he was a real gentleman behind the wheel, always concerned about the wellbeing of the other drivers and shocked by Senna's lack of concern for their safety.

Prost didn't do himself any favours in '89.

He told a French journalist what was meant to be off-the-record about what went on behind-closed-doors post-San Marino GP which completely destroyed the Senna/Prost relationship.

After signing with Ferrari he wins the Italian GP. During the podium ceremony he drops the trophy to the tifosi even though McLaren are meant to keep the trophies - purposely to ps off Ron Dennis or heat of the moment?

mattikake said:

But the thing that always stood out for me was Hamilton's consistency right from 2003. He would always pick up the points and this is what he did in gp2 (only 5 wins, 1 pole remember) and the first half of 2007 to destabilising effect, until up to speed with, then out pacing Alonso. Was it 9 podiums in a row, out of the box? 2008 less wins than Massa = more consistency. Even in his early career, it was wins/podiums that usually out-stripped poles.

I wouldn't entirely agree.

2007 & 08 he showed immaturity and impetuosity, compromised himself in the latter stages of the season.

2007 Brazillian GP - technical failure notwithstanding - all he had to do was grab a points finish but went for maximum attack on the first lap.

2008 Japanese GP he tried too hard on the first lap and lost a load of positions. It got to the point that McLaren were losing some faith and purposely gave Hamilton a low drag car at Interlagos when they knew they were able to run a higher DF car which would have encouraged Hamilton to attack more.

kiseca said:

For me, ironically, Hamilton reminds me a lot more of Prost than of Senna or Schumacher, more so now than ever, in how he drives a car, how he considers a race, how he races with other drivers, and how he wins.

I would entirely agree with this post-Nico Rosberg. Hamilton is now the complete driver. No better example than in Turkey. Tactically and strategically he showed why he's the best of this generation. All brains, minimal effort.