Lewis Hamilton G.O.A.T. ?
Discussion
Maximus_Meridius101 said:
paulguitar said:
I'm a huge Senna fan, but to me, Hamilton represents the best of Senna and Prost combined. Effectively, he's Senna on a Saturday snd Prost on a Sunday. We may never see such greatness again.
https://fb.watch/4wJQ-pXmM7/Nah, not even close.
But, honestly, I think Hamilton would have been more circumspect in that situation, and not have taken himself out of the race. Nonetheless, really great to see that again, classic stuff!
Not sure it’s worthwhile trying to decide who is the GOAT as it’s impossible to compare across eras. I often think it takes some very different attributes to be at the top today in an age of ultra professionalism compared to the less professional past. Is quite possible none would shine in a different period.
But to argue that Lewis is not right up there and in the mix with the very best is a bit odd too.
But to argue that Lewis is not right up there and in the mix with the very best is a bit odd too.
95 fiesta si said:
Probably is the best there's ever been, sometime comparison aren't fair when your talking breaking records, like most wins and most poles. In the 1990s they had 16 races a season compared to the 22ish we have in modern day F1 so we are talking another 6 chances to win per season, that racks up over a long career. The record that does stand though regardless of races is championships, and my guess he will overtake schumacher's record before he retires even if its not this year. On paper he is and will be the best ever.
Wonder who the next driver will be to beat Lewis Record ? very doable when they start in their teens and end a career in their 40s.
Quite right. They start racing at 4 years old now (bambino karts) and actually compete from the age of 6. By the time they’re 18, they’ve been properly racing for up to 12 years already. I cringe watching these tiny little kiddies racing each other with lids that are bigger than they are, but that’s the way it is now. Their careers are going to be a lot longer, they’ll have more races to win, so the records become a bit meaningless in the grand scheme of things.Wonder who the next driver will be to beat Lewis Record ? very doable when they start in their teens and end a career in their 40s.
Hungrymc said:
Not sure it’s worthwhile trying to decide who is the GOAT as it’s impossible to compare across eras. I often think it takes some very different attributes to be at the top today in an age of ultra professionalism compared to the less professional past. Is quite possible none would shine in a different period.
But to argue that Lewis is not right up there and in the mix with the very best is a bit odd too.
Agreed, it's impossible. But I think it is possible to suggest without fear of contradiction that Lewis Hamilton in any era would have been a gamechanger, a mighty force...But to argue that Lewis is not right up there and in the mix with the very best is a bit odd too.
paulguitar said:
I'm a huge Senna fan, but to me, Hamilton represents the best of Senna and Prost combined. Effectively, he's Senna on a Saturday snd Prost on a Sunday. We may never see such greatness again.
I agree with this. Lewis has the speed of Senna and Schumacher, but without losing self control like both of those drivers could, and then he can do Prost too when the time calls, such as Turkey last year as just one instance. Indeed that race was a prime example of Senna and Prost in one package. All of his rivals when he came into the sport have faded away, but as we saw today the young guns are still really struggling to beat him. Lewis was lucky today though, I do feel Max was robbed, that stupid, stupid turn four rule is yet another example of needless Formula One stupidity. Still, it'll be a long season.
See i am a Max fan and dont think he was actually robbed by the "off track" incident.
I blame Redbulls strategy for the loss. Lewis was never ever going to pass Max on track. Red bull just needed to keep track position from the first round of pitstops and they didn't. From that point Max was always playing catch up and in the end they just run out of time.
Max playing the 1 man band again doesn't help either. Perez being outside the top 10 in qualifying then electric issues at the start also compromised Red Bulls strategy.
Pretty confident we are going to see plenty of races through the season where Lewis doesn't come out on top.
I blame Redbulls strategy for the loss. Lewis was never ever going to pass Max on track. Red bull just needed to keep track position from the first round of pitstops and they didn't. From that point Max was always playing catch up and in the end they just run out of time.
Max playing the 1 man band again doesn't help either. Perez being outside the top 10 in qualifying then electric issues at the start also compromised Red Bulls strategy.
Pretty confident we are going to see plenty of races through the season where Lewis doesn't come out on top.
paulguitar said:
Agreed, it's impossible. But I think it is possible to suggest without fear of contradiction that Lewis Hamilton in any era would have been a gamechanger, a mighty force...
The biggest issue I have with this, is that a true great ( and there have been a few ) will outdrive a ( relatively) poor car. For example, the engineers / team will say, “that car is probably good for P4” and the truly great driver poles it. This has been a marker of true greatness for ever. Hamilton has never managed this feat. Give him a car worthy of pole, he ( sometimes ) poles it. Give him a dog, and he can’t out perform it, he proved it when he drove for McLaren. The current Merc isn’t as good as last year’s ( and the last few year’s Mercs) but his performance was shown to be mostly down to the car, by George Russell’s performance in his car, when he got the plague last year. When he had a leading car, and a better team mate ( Rosberg ) he lost, that puts another nail in the coffin, as far as ‘is he the G.O.A.T.’ argument goes.paulguitar said:
If anything, F1 is at an all-time high-point in terms of talent on the grid at present.
If Hamilton/Verstappen were somehow time-travelled back to an earlier era of F1 they'd likely be in an almost comically different league to the drivers of the day. Fitter, quicker, better prepared, sharper physically and mentally.
I think Hamilton's a terrific driver - and quite possibly the best I've seen in approaching 50 years following the sport - but I'm not sure I'd agree talent on the F1 grid is at an all-time high. Ok, I accept the grid's no longer populated in part by poor quality drivers who are there just because they can afford to pay for a seat but are there really a number of drivers out there at the moment to rival the era when Prost, Piquet, Mansell and Senna were all competing at the same time? Hamilton's certainly up there with those - and perhaps Alonso as well - but I'm not sure any of the others are (or at least not yet).If Hamilton/Verstappen were somehow time-travelled back to an earlier era of F1 they'd likely be in an almost comically different league to the drivers of the day. Fitter, quicker, better prepared, sharper physically and mentally.
As for the comment about Hamilton/Verstappen being in a comically different league from anyone who's gone before, personally I think many of the drivers of days gone by would have been much better still given modern approaches to fitness, preparation, etc. It's why personally I think all this comparison across eras stuff is ultimately meaningless and for me that applies to most if not all sports, not just F1; all you can ever say is someone was the best in the era in which they competed but anything more than that is just opinion and speculation. For example, Novak Djokovic has a level of fitness and a style of tennis that, if you could transport it back to the 1960's/70's, would sweep everyone else aside; however, does that mean he's more talented than, say, Rod Laver or is he just a product of a different era? I'd say the latter and so it is with F1 drivers; Verstappen may be fitter than drivers of yesteryear but in a comically different league in terms of ability as a racing driver? Not sure how you can sensibly arrive at that conclusion - as people in these debates so often do, I think you're equating latest with greatest.
Maximus_Meridius101 said:
The biggest issue I have with this, is that a true great ( and there have been a few ) will outdrive a ( relatively) poor car. For example, the engineers / team will say, “that car is probably good for P4” and the truly great driver poles it. This has been a marker of true greatness for ever. Hamilton has never managed this feat. Give him a car worthy of pole, he ( sometimes ) poles it. Give him a dog, and he can’t out perform it, he proved it when he drove for McLaren. The current Merc isn’t as good as last year’s ( and the last few year’s Mercs) but his performance was shown to be mostly down to the car, by George Russell’s performance in his car, when he got the plague last year. When he had a leading car, and a better team mate ( Rosberg ) he lost, that puts another nail in the coffin, as far as ‘is he the G.O.A.T.’ argument goes.
Fair enough on the face of it, but then what happened with Alonso and Button, both champions from the top drawer who nonetheless tolled around at back in the McLaren in 2015 and 2016?JNW1 said:
I think Hamilton's a terrific driver - and quite possibly the best I've seen in approaching 50 years following the sport - but I'm not sure I'd agree talent on the F1 grid is at an all-time high. Ok, I accept the grid's no longer populated in part by poor quality drivers who are there just because they can afford to pay for a seat but are there really a number of drivers out there at the moment to rival the era when Prost, Piquet, Mansell and Senna were all competing at the same time? Hamilton's certainly up there with those - and perhaps Alonso as well - but I'm not sure any of the others are (or at least not yet).
As for the comment about Hamilton/Verstappen being in a comically different league from anyone who's gone before, personally I think many of the drivers of days gone by would have been much better still given modern approaches to fitness, preparation, etc. It's why personally I think all this comparison across eras stuff is ultimately meaningless and for me that applies to most if not all sports, not just F1; all you can ever say is someone was the best in the era in which they competed but anything more than that is just opinion and speculation. For example, Novak Djokovic has a level of fitness and a style of tennis that, if you could transport it back to the 1960's/70's, would sweep everyone else aside; however, does that mean he's more talented than, say, Rod Laver or is he just a product of a different era? I'd say the latter and so it is with F1 drivers; Verstappen may be fitter than drivers of yesteryear but in a comically different league in terms of ability as a racing driver? Not sure how you can sensibly arrive at that conclusion - as people in these debates so often do, I think you're equating latest with greatest.
I think you've made some very good points there. As for the comment about Hamilton/Verstappen being in a comically different league from anyone who's gone before, personally I think many of the drivers of days gone by would have been much better still given modern approaches to fitness, preparation, etc. It's why personally I think all this comparison across eras stuff is ultimately meaningless and for me that applies to most if not all sports, not just F1; all you can ever say is someone was the best in the era in which they competed but anything more than that is just opinion and speculation. For example, Novak Djokovic has a level of fitness and a style of tennis that, if you could transport it back to the 1960's/70's, would sweep everyone else aside; however, does that mean he's more talented than, say, Rod Laver or is he just a product of a different era? I'd say the latter and so it is with F1 drivers; Verstappen may be fitter than drivers of yesteryear but in a comically different league in terms of ability as a racing driver? Not sure how you can sensibly arrive at that conclusion - as people in these debates so often do, I think you're equating latest with greatest.
Maximus_Meridius101 said:
Quite right. They start racing at 4 years old now (bambino karts) and actually compete from the age of 6. By the time they’re 18, they’ve been properly racing for up to 12 years already. I cringe watching these tiny little kiddies racing each other with lids that are bigger than they are, but that’s the way it is now. Their careers are going to be a lot longer, they’ll have more races to win, so the records become a bit meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
So they start learning far earlier, race for far longer, and we know how much fitter they are nowadays, yet you can’t accept that that makes the best today better than the best from previous decades?That seems like a rather perverse view.
JNW1 said:
paulguitar said:
If anything, F1 is at an all-time high-point in terms of talent on the grid at present.
If Hamilton/Verstappen were somehow time-travelled back to an earlier era of F1 they'd likely be in an almost comically different league to the drivers of the day. Fitter, quicker, better prepared, sharper physically and mentally.
I think Hamilton's a terrific driver - and quite possibly the best I've seen in approaching 50 years following the sport - but I'm not sure I'd agree talent on the F1 grid is at an all-time high. Ok, I accept the grid's no longer populated in part by poor quality drivers who are there just because they can afford to pay for a seat but are there really a number of drivers out there at the moment to rival the era when Prost, Piquet, Mansell and Senna were all competing at the same time? Hamilton's certainly up there with those - and perhaps Alonso as well - but I'm not sure any of the others are (or at least not yet).If Hamilton/Verstappen were somehow time-travelled back to an earlier era of F1 they'd likely be in an almost comically different league to the drivers of the day. Fitter, quicker, better prepared, sharper physically and mentally.
As for the comment about Hamilton/Verstappen being in a comically different league from anyone who's gone before, personally I think many of the drivers of days gone by would have been much better still given modern approaches to fitness, preparation, etc. It's why personally I think all this comparison across eras stuff is ultimately meaningless and for me that applies to most if not all sports, not just F1; all you can ever say is someone was the best in the era in which they competed but anything more than that is just opinion and speculation. For example, Novak Djokovic has a level of fitness and a style of tennis that, if you could transport it back to the 1960's/70's, would sweep everyone else aside; however, does that mean he's more talented than, say, Rod Laver or is he just a product of a different era? I'd say the latter and so it is with F1 drivers; Verstappen may be fitter than drivers of yesteryear but in a comically different league in terms of ability as a racing driver? Not sure how you can sensibly arrive at that conclusion - as people in these debates so often do, I think you're equating latest with greatest.
Would Hamilton be successful in a time without detailed analytics and meticulous physical and mental training? Would Hunt have the control and discipline to follow the regimes they do today? They both may well, and we’ll never know for sure.
Northernboy said:
So they start learning far earlier, race for far longer, and we know how much fitter they are nowadays, yet you can’t accept that that makes the best today better than the best from previous decades?
That seems like a rather perverse view.
Depends on the point you're trying to make? I wouldn't disagree that, generally, the drivers of today are fitter and and more focused than their counterparts of 40 or 50 years ago and to that extent they're better; however, IMO that doesn't mean they're more talented, it just means they're a product of different standards associated with a different era. I refer you to my Novak Djokovic/Rod Laver comparison in my previous post - different sport but the principle's the same!That seems like a rather perverse view.
Maximus_Meridius101 said:
paulguitar said:
Agreed, it's impossible. But I think it is possible to suggest without fear of contradiction that Lewis Hamilton in any era would have been a gamechanger, a mighty force...
The biggest issue I have with this, is that a true great ( and there have been a few ) will outdrive a ( relatively) poor car. For example, the engineers / team will say, “that car is probably good for P4” and the truly great driver poles it. This has been a marker of true greatness for ever. Hamilton has never managed this feat. Give him a car worthy of pole, he ( sometimes ) poles it. Give him a dog, and he can’t out perform it, he proved it when he drove for McLaren. The current Merc isn’t as good as last year’s ( and the last few year’s Mercs) but his performance was shown to be mostly down to the car, by George Russell’s performance in his car, when he got the plague last year. When he had a leading car, and a better team mate ( Rosberg ) he lost, that puts another nail in the coffin, as far as ‘is he the G.O.A.T.’ argument goes.Gad-Westy said:
Are we talking about the same LH here? The guy who has won in every single F1 car he’s driven, the ones with warts and all. And the guy that beat Rosberg 3 out of the 4 seasons they were team mates...
Seriously, don’t feed the troll. The guy is very strange and seems to create a new account every few months now to spout the same b
ks, normally in cycling/coronavirus/Lewis Hamilton threads. Hello GOATever/BrundanBianchi/Indoraptor/whatever you’re called this week
JNW1 said:
Depends on the point you're trying to make? I wouldn't disagree that, generally, the drivers of today are fitter and and more focused than their counterparts of 40 or 50 years ago and to that extent they're better; however, IMO that doesn't mean they're more talented, it just means they're a product of different standards associated with a different era. I refer you to my Novak Djokovic/Rod Laver comparison in my previous post - different sport but the principle's the same!
But the question is who is the best driver, not who is the most talented. There are going to be thousands of people with more talent than any of the former champions if you want to go down that route who’ve never sat in a racing car.No, the best means who was best at racing cars, and that is a combination of talent and application.
lauda said:
Seriously, don’t feed the troll. The guy is very strange and seems to create a new account every few months now to spout the same bks, normally in cycling/coronavirus/Lewis Hamilton threads.
Hello GOATever/BrundanBianchi/Indoraptor/whatever you’re called this week
Is one of the posters here DeltonaS, or has he exploded?ks, normally in cycling/coronavirus/Lewis Hamilton threads. Hello GOATever/BrundanBianchi/Indoraptor/whatever you’re called this week
Maximus_Meridius101 said:
paulguitar said:
Agreed, it's impossible. But I think it is possible to suggest without fear of contradiction that Lewis Hamilton in any era would have been a gamechanger, a mighty force...
The biggest issue I have with this, is that a true great ( and there have been a few ) will outdrive a ( relatively) poor car. For example, the engineers / team will say, “that car is probably good for P4” and the truly great driver poles it. This has been a marker of true greatness for ever. Hamilton has never managed this feat. Give him a car worthy of pole, he ( sometimes ) poles it. Give him a dog, and he can’t out perform it, he proved it when he drove for McLaren. The current Merc isn’t as good as last year’s ( and the last few year’s Mercs) but his performance was shown to be mostly down to the car, by George Russell’s performance in his car, when he got the plague last year. When he had a leading car, and a better team mate ( Rosberg ) he lost, that puts another nail in the coffin, as far as ‘is he the G.O.A.T.’ argument goes.https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/motorsport/12866166...
I think this nails it, just not the order of greatness in the infographic, on the page. I can’t really comment on any drivers I never saw race either. If I base my ‘order of greatness’ on anything, I must have seen the driver compete, in real life. But for me, I agree with Sir Jackie, that I wouldn’t put Hamilton in my top 3.
I think this nails it, just not the order of greatness in the infographic, on the page. I can’t really comment on any drivers I never saw race either. If I base my ‘order of greatness’ on anything, I must have seen the driver compete, in real life. But for me, I agree with Sir Jackie, that I wouldn’t put Hamilton in my top 3.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff