Aren't you making a case for Lewis not being quite as good as you continually make out with some of that post?
close practice times today. qualifying should be intense tomorrow. i'm giving the edge again to Nico to take pole given his track record this year of being able to put in one awesome last lap.
Yes 1 race won by Stewart's team mate in his 3 wdc seasons compared to his 17. Having a great car but a team mate who is either incompetent or will play second fiddle makes your average look far better than it is. Now had he had a decent team mate it may have been 9 wins apiece and less wdcs. Taking his win total down to about 18 and his win percentage to lower than Hamilton. Meh doesn't bother me much if nico gets pole. His pace in the races is never up to scratch. As long as lewis starts alongside he should breeze by. But I don't think nico will get pole given his poor track record here
I was merely refuting Stewart's own quotes. Trying to justify why lewis is statistically better than him but being selective in his use of stats. The fact ham started in a mclaren is irrelevant: he earnt his place. Drivers of that time could easily race into their 40s if they were willing to tempt fate that long. So even if drivers start younger now it's so competitive these days that they are over by their mid late thirties. Must also note that Hamilton started from the bottom: his family were not rich and had no racing connections (unlike say rosberg for example or verstsppen to an extent). Most relevant statistic is that in the years Stewart had a good car (and thus most of his wins) his team mates were either incapable or playing second fiddle to him. Take that away and his record is on par with button
You really know nothing toil and you continue to embarrass yourself. For your own sake just stop. You're harping on wins and nothing else. You eat up these articles like some of our friends in P&R eat up the other nonsense. Ill give you a tip for a two hour lesson on a just a few aspects of formula 1 history. Go watch the documentary "1" please. Report back after you do so you can actually see some of these men in action and what they did for this sport and how ridiculous you are making yourself sound. You're continually defending a man that doesn't know you exist, doesnt give a **** you're defending him, and wouldnt pay attention to you if you were standing next to him and in the process you are trashing a historical legend and triple world champion in an era of deadliness. Your blind loyalty is borderline insane and your lack of knowledge is astounding.
Gotta be honest here Steve, not just his opinion, but, FWIW, mine, and many others too. He admitted a while back he had no idea who 'Francois' was when someone posted his anniversary. Now he has the gall to claim JYS had 'no competition' as a teammate. Next I'm sure he'll be claiming Fangio was a tosser, Jimmy was lucky and even Michael is useless compared to the great Hamilton! As I think everyone here agrees, Hammy's a damn fine driver, certainly among the best of the current crop. But to claim he's the best ever Brit driver shows an ignorance of the history of the sport that beggars belief. He's not (yet anyway) fit to carry Jimmy or JYS' jock IMO. Cheers, Ian
he's entitled to his opinion as is everyone else and your "historical legend" may not have cared about you that much either.
Ahh back to your trademark arguing tactics. Telling me that I know nothing, telling me I need a "lesson". I eat up articles now too apparently? Never knew I was gullible but hey. Arguments can only be grounded in refuting points made by the person you're discussing with. Saying someone is stupid and knows nothing repeatedly loud enough in an attempt to make others believe you (despite the baseless nature of the claim) is not a way to 'win' an argument. Since I am an upstanding fellow I will stick to refuting your points only rather than insulting you: Now let us look at your "legends" history; Among his team mates the only credible opponents are graham hill and you also say Francois was very good. The rest I think we can all agree were complete no namers with no racing record whatsoever and all this did was make Stewart look better than he is. Graham hill beat Stewart soundly in their time together as team mates. Cervert, and I will use your own assessment of him from earlier in the thread: It is beyond repute that Stewart had an extremely good car in his wdc years. This can be seen by the fact that people like lauda and graham hill (who beat Stewart twice in equal machinery) were absolutely nowhere in the standings. In fact in 73 when Stewart won the wdc hill scored not a single point. Now that we have established he had a great car to flatter him (ironic given his own comments on hamiltons car) let's address what you said. You say Cervert was faster than him but would stay behind him. Therefore, by your own admission you are saying that Stewart only won the championship, which should've gone to his team mate, because his team mate was the clear number 2 and didn't challenge him for wins. So how do you explain 1973 when graham hill scored no points and Stewart won the championship? When they were team mates hill beat him comfortably. Obviously there were great cars back then. Stewart had a great car better than the field for all his championship wins. This is a gift Initself. Then to top things off he had complete no name team mates like Johnny Servoz-Gavin That nobody has even heard of and then the likes of Cervert, who through your own admission, let him win. When he had a real contender as his team mate, double wdc graham hill, he was easily beaten. In contrast, Hamilton started at mclaren up against one of the best drivers of all time, fernando alonso. And iirc remains the only driver in f1 to have beaten alonso as team mates. He also had the likes of jenson button who is also a wdc and damn consistent and beat him 2/3 seasons. Then there is nico rosberg, an accomplished all rounder, and unlike how Cervert was to Stewart, rosberg was actually allowed to fight his team mate and challenge him for wins. Which is how racing should be. Yes all drivers from the past era should be respected for their massive balls and rAcing when they could easily die. Not just Stewart. Stewart should be respected for his contributions to safety in f1. But to say his win percentage meant anything is myopic at best. You all simply conflate driving in a dangerous era as being a better driver. Not the case. Stewart's combination of car and inept team mate flattered him. Hamilton is the most successful British driver in history. He actually beat his world champion team mates. That is all. The statistics are there. Either chose to be blind or open your eyes. But hey...apparently I'm ignorant because I have an opinion that differs from some of yours (Ian and rob). I provide reasons for my opinion and rob does too to some extent. Ian you provide no reasons. You simply say I'm ignorant for agreeing with the statistics which see Hamilton as the most successful British driver. If that's ignorant then what do we call having a baseless opinion? I'll leave that one for you to work out (or ask Peter he knows). Because apparently you rate Stewart far above hamilton, apparently Hamilton isn't fit to carry his jockstrap? A blind adherence to the drivers of yesteryear is ignorant. A well reasoned opinion based on statistics (like mine) is far from ignorant.
Using your argument, Heikki Kovalainen was a great driver? World class? That was his teammate during his WDC year. Using your argument again, Nico Rosberg is a world class teammate? He's proven himself to be the best? The car has nothing to do with it? Him and Jensen were equally matched with Lewis taking the 2 point edge in 2012. This should be a good response.
I ask you again, because you're not answering me. What do you base success on? Does having the most wins make someone the most successful? Since everyone is obsessed with opinions and statistics, i will say this. In my opinion, Jackie Stewart is the best F1 driver followed by Jimmy Clark based on Championship and win percentage. I'm going to write an article and publish it on some half assed website and then BAM, its automatically the truth.
You can hardly compare drivers from a different era, I think. Even comparing contemporaries is flawed and doesn't reflect the whole story. Success cannot just be measured by statistics alone. How can one compare the number of wins or poles in 2014, with the same back in the 70s or the 50s, for example? The number of GPs has more than doubled, and the opportunity to score wins has hugely increased at the same time. In the combination car+driver, the importance of the car has increased tremendously nowadays. Even a good driver hardly stands a chance now if he has a second-rate car, etc... I think that Alonso, Button are still pretty good, but without a Mercedes or a Red Bull they haven't been able to challenge for the title this year. Does that mean that Hamilton is better than them? Well, I am not convinced.
no Kovalainen was pretty bad. Rosberg is reasonably good. Point is that overall Hamilton has had much more formidable team mates than Stewart. That is the point I am making. In your own words, Stewarts team mate let him win the WDC is what you basically said. And before that his other team mates sucked COMPLETELY when he had the best car - like nobody has even heard of them. So based on your own admissions he isn't the most deserving of WDCs? Winning in a great car with no competition, so please tell me how he can be your hero in light of this:? I rate Jensen very highly. Lewis higher obviously based on their entire performances over their career. I base success over all measurable metrics but viewed hollistically in light of an analysis as well. i.e Stewarts 'win percentage' can easily be explained away.
Also somewhat strange he is your fav/view him as the best driver when you werent alive to see him race? JUst saying...
I beg to differ looking at the post count... I'd say it's ............ [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljIQo1OHkTI]Simple Minds - Alive And Kicking - YouTube[/ame]
He's not the best or my favorite. That would be Mr. Senna. But you know what toil, you're right. Hamilton is the best statistically. I concede the argument, you win.
+1 Not by a hundred miles!.... And those us who know a little about the sport recognize this. I can't be bothered to dispute all of this clowns claimed "statistics", but here's a pretty good summary of what Jimmy achieved. Take the blinkers off for a moment and *think* about this: - He won ~35% of the race he started.[The others, his car generally broke ] - He was on pole for ~40% of those. - Front row for >60%. - Fastest lap, ~40%. Hammy is not fit to carry his jock. Sorry. Ian Image Unavailable, Please Login
