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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff