Hamilton v Rosberg Thread

Fair point IMO.

 

Aha I see, some fellow said that I had the wit and sophistication of a donkey, an absurd suggestion.

It is absurd, Unless, of course, it was a particularly stupid donkey..

 

I won't ask how you know.

 

So you are toil, then.

 

No am a pod.

 

Just as I suspected.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

LOL how much derailing will this thread stand....

 

I am a bit surprised, aren´t you the one who tells us all day long that actually Hamilton has no team mate than could challenge him for wins???

OK, I have a question to you: you have three DNF in a season for technical reasons, what do you think will worsen your statistic more, three out of 10 or three out of 20? Not to mention the fact that back then DNF where much more common then today, just compare the reliability of Ferrari back then and today (as this is the only marque that was present in all eras). Furthermore you example with three races is bull**** as the amount of races is way to low to do any statistics, in the regions of 100-150 this makes a little bit more sense. You might be well educated in writing but obviously you have no clue about calculus of probability.

No, as this is the only on that is comparable in times of different amount of races. Winning 9 races like Hamilton brought Fangio two championships, in his best he won 6 out of 8 races!!! How can you say that winning 9 races out of about 20 is more successful than winning 6 out of 8? That is far away from every logic, not just from mine, in your therms 9 out of 20 would be even better than 8 out of 8...

With statement like the following it looks like you did a lot to achieve that.

But it looks like you need that and you are happy to get that much attention here, maybe because you do not get this outside the forum and then you dare to call others looser...

No need to, as you are the second clown who thinks it is funny to mess around with my name you are obviously related...

 

I had meant team mates all along but didn't make it clear. With all the wdcs in that field do you think I would be stupid enough to have meant the former? I was trying to explain away the win percentage by noting he had a good car but no team mate to challenge for wins. That explains partly why his win percent is so high.

But I will define what I mean exactly by narrowing the debate parameters;

"Hamilton is the most statistically succesful British f1 driver on the track".

We will ignore all off the off track pUrsuits or achievements in other race series.

A simplistic analysis would give equal weighting to all stats: now using Stewart as an example; Hamilton has more wins, poles and fastest laps. Stewart has more wdc and higher win percentage = 3 v 2. I could be more cheeky and put in podium percentage and make it 4-2 but no need.

But statistics shouldn't be given equal weighting and some are more significant than others:

The problem with win percentage is that it relies on a threshold argument to colour it with legitimacy; I.e you could enter 1 race and win it but that would be quite meaningless. There are a few guys who entered a couple of races but won 1-2 and so have a high win rate. Very meaningless. Therefore for win percentage to mean anything it really requires more entries. But one cannot simply draw an arbitrary line and say win percentage only matters after x number of races. That would treat those on the cusp of the threshold vastly differently from those who just make it despite maybe 1 race entry separating them. So for race percentage the general trend is that the more races you enter the more impressive a high win percentage is. Stewart has about 100 entries to Lewis's 150 and whilst it may say 27% to 20% the statistic makes no allowance for number of entries because as entires increase probability of win percentage remaining high decreases. Therefore the difference in real terms is closer than you think and quite unquantifiable; for win percentage does not represent the chance that driver actually has of winning a race and therefore cannot be held to be a measure of their success. Indeed no one would argue that a driver who entered and won 1 gp would keep that success rate.

Wins can be problematic too: because look at Alesi. Very good driver with 1 win to his name.

Wdcs can also be problematic because undeserving champions like keke rosberg have a Wdc

Podiums are a great often overlooked metric as well.

Fastest laps imo is the most meaningless stat of the lot


Position in your career is also relevant. Ham is finally in a good car after driving a dog of a Mac for a few years so his stats are going to vastly improve over the coming few years as the gap to merc doesn't seem to be getting closed.

Point is it is a very arguable proposition. And I would say that on balance Hamilton is statistically more successful. I don't know how many times I've been insulted in this thread but they are all unwarranted. It is not an idiotic argument to make by any means. People have been perhaps arguing on the basis that I said "best" but that's simply not the case. Maybe in 5-8 years when hams career is over we can argue that point properly - because Stewart's results won't change but as time goes on hamiltons will. And with the years he has ahead in a great car I'm sure no one here would exclude him from being a contender for the best British driver ever (which I said a few pages back before I got misinterpreted and attacked by everybody).

I really must get on with the day but will be back tonight to respond to singoff and whoever else posted in here in the mean time

 

I'am awfilly sorrwie if you are rwe-ferring to moi, Mr Singeroff, I did offfer you an olive bwanch.

 

I didn't ask because I didn't want to know.

At least you weren't donkey gazing in Mexico.

 

That just sounds wrong, within the context of your prior donkey chat..

 

No matter how you structure your argument. No matter what logic you use, you're never going to convince him.

 

What me! at this time of night let loose on here, what were they thinking.... G' night zzzzzzz

 

heeheehee/..

 

This is by far the most stupid argument I have ever heard in this forum.

 

Better to watch them than trying to convince them.

 

Nah it's your opinion, besides you read it..