I looked up callow in the dictionary. It said 'see Toil".
It's not like I'm comparing him to Maldonado, Vettel is hardly terrible. I think Inhwrent in your post is the assumption that modern drivers couldn't drive an old car. With all their training, since a young age, I think they would manage it just fine. Granted some drivers who are more timid like massa for example may not want to stare death in the face as much as others. Lauda thought the modern cars were easy and look at how he embarrassed himself
If Stewart is so good why did he lose to hill when they were team mates 2 years in a row? Do you rate Stewart about hill and if so why?
I don't doubt that. Too bad that calling someone immature because they disagree with your viewpoint is the hallmark of immaturity. So I'm not sure what that makes you...such an infantile arguing technique even a 3 year old would be ashamed to raise it
Your posts have the certainty of youth and come off as arrogant and rude. With any luck you'll grow out of it and will be spared the embarrassment of revisiting them once you have a bit more perspective. Until then, enjoy yourself.
WTF? Can you not talk crap ever? you and toil are so blinded by defensiveness and hate for anyone who doesn't love lewis that you keep looking for something that doesn't exist. There's no point me explaining my post further, because you won't/can't see the forest for the trees. There are no contradictions at all in my post, and if that's how you see it then it's YOUR bias that's the problem.
Toil, your arguments are getting more and more chaotic and erratic. It looks like you talked yourself in a discussion and you do not know how to get out of it... You rarely answer on simple questions that might show up your arguments, so here once more: You say it is all about the absolute amount of wins so here is a comparison for you: Jim Clark won 3 out of 10 races for the 1964 championship, in the other 7 he DNF due to technical defects (although he was still classified in two of them). Nico Rosberg won 4 out of 16 so far, does this make Rosberg more successful than Clark??? If so, this would clearly disagree with your own opinion that DNF should not count for the WDC... Now you are setting a standard that not even Hamilton surpasses...He had two WDC team mates and neither did he really outpace Alonso nor did he outpace Button over a three years period...He won his first WDC against Kovalainen who will most likely stay a footnote in F1 history forever. The second (assumed that he will win this year) is against Rosberg...Now there are different opinions about Rosberg but by your own standard (as he is "scared of Hamilton and his superior racecraft") this would not be sensational either...So even when winning two WDC he did not meet you own request by doing this over an other WDC-driver First of all there is still the question why you rate a WDC in a Mercedes this year higher than a RB-WDC in the last 4 years? According to your own words both Vettel and Hamilton did not have a matching team mate... Why is winning for different team automatically better than winning just for one? Hamilton won in a McLaren that was equal to the Ferrari by 1 point which gives him a place in the history books as a WDC but does this alone put him in the line of the greatest? Then in the following years he had no car to win (as other cars were obviously better) and he found a new home and a car that is far superior in its second year so it is obviously easier to win this year in the Mercedes than again in the McLaren but still you think it is worth more because these are different teams??? Now to your comment regarding Vettel and the fact that he was beaten by his team mate this year. How do you know whether Ricciardo will not win a lot of WDC in the future so why does it take away credit from Vettel automatically? Or going back to Alonso vs. Hamilton: Alonso came as a double WDC and he was not able to beat his Rookie Team Mate...Does this take away credit from him especially as you now say that this "Rookie Team Mate" became one of the best? Or do you really rate Alonso less because of that even when it was him and not Hamilton in previous years fighting Vettel for the WDC in a far inferior car ? So taking your own standard Hamilton is on a level with at least Alonso and Button making him one of the best in the current grid but not "outstanding". According your own standards he has neither won a WDC in a far inferior car nore clearly outperformed a WDC team mate... That is very easy to explain: today´s F1 cars have a much more narrow threshold but they are very safe. Good drivers can drive modern F1 cars (apart from tyre management and fuel saving) very much to the limit in every lap, so when looking at today´s pole time this is very much the best a Mercedes could do today. If Nico and Lewis would have had 10 more attempts they would have both achieved about this time (maybe a margin better) but that´s it. If they would have gone off the track by trying who cares, there are wide run-off areas and the cars are safe. Back then it was much more about the talent of the single driver and "the balls" (as you called it) whether they were driving 90 or 95 % of the cars potential, they rarely really achieved 100% as most likely the approach would have resulted in going-off and that usually hurted back then. Just watch free practice sessions today how often even the top drivers are spinning or running wide to get where they want to be at the end of the day, this was simply not possible back then. I have seen Jochen Mass lying under a Lancia-Ferrari at the Goodwood Revival a few years ago, although the flip was not "spectacular" this was certainly more dangerous than most of the big crashes we saw in the last years in modern F1. I do not know where you have read that here? Certainly they can but this actually says nothing in our discussion...You have to see drivers in their period, whether they were superior to all the others with the same level of professionalism making them special and remembered. Or to say it very simple: they guy handling fire in a cave 10 thousand years ago was certainly highly rated in his clan, I doubt that you get the same reputation with your cigarette lighter today... So again before some guys are whining again: I think that Hamilton is one of the best drivers today, together with Alonso, Vettel, maybe Button and a few others we do not know by now (as they did not had a really competitive car so far) like maybe Ricciardo or even younger guys. But I do not think that he is way above all of them like Schumacher or Senna were in their time as I did not think Vettel was when winning in the last 4 years...
I'm actually very polite. You guys are the ones who start with the name calling. I've been called stupid, immature, pathetic, a one eyed fan boy, basically everything under the sun. I only retaliate when people are mean to me first. Yet apparently "I'm the arrogant and rude one" despite you providing not a single reason. Age makes no difference. Aircon is still trolling hard and he's probably around 60. I'm not about to congratulate anyone for existing on this planet longer than I have...
I was at work before and was crazily smashing at my phone writing out a reply and didn't really get time to respond to everyone. I promise you I wasn't trying to dodge stuff. Im not the type to do that. I believe I said things like wins, poles, WDC were more useful metrics than something like a win percent (as I explained before showing how Stewarts win percentage was not at all impressive given his good car and little interteam competition). But i completely agree that things should be looked at hollistically. With every race victory I always analyse the race to see who performed better and all my posts in race threads go along this line of reasoning. That is what I have always been about. DNFS beyond the fault of the driver (i.e purely mechanical failure shouldn't count to the WDC) - perhaps they should have in those days because 7/10 dnfs was not uncommon which gave a very small percentage of races for one to stake their championship on. But my recommendation was for todays f1. In terms of your question, I would have to look at the races. To say that back then drivers were more deserving of a WDC because they DNFed more and had far fewer races to try and win is incorrect because all drivers faced similar reliability issues. Thus misforunate was SPREAD across the entire field; misforunte is a relative thing afterall. Likewise, if a driver lost the WDC today with 2 DNFs its not seen as unfair because basically everyone suffers around 2 DNFs per season. Questions of unfairness arise when one driver suffers a disproportionate amount of misfortune and loses for that reason. So it really depends; how many DNFS did Clarks opponents have? What was the nature of the DNFs? What were the nature of his wins? (i.e did everyone run out of fuel and he won the race). In short, the answer could be either of them -I would have to watch the season. All analysis is inherently subjective but as long as one has reasons for their opinion and can back them up then that is valid enough. You have reasons and provide arguments, I am fine with that. People liek Aircon/Viz/Ian just say I am wrong and that people like Stewart are a legend but fail to refute any arguments. Having a WDC team mate and beating them goes a long way to proving you are a great driver. Stewart did not do so. General point is Hamilton went toe to toe with WDCs and came out on top more often than not. The same can not be said about Stewart. I rate both Alonso and Button very highly so of course one does not expect a huge margin over a WDC (unless the WDC is kimi raikkonen who didnt deserve 07 and onlywon it because Ham/Alonso were taking eachother out and then mclaren turned hams car off - arguably ofc because not everybdoy agrees with me. But everyone can agree that if Hams car hadnt mysteriously turned off for 30 secs he wouldve been wdc in 07 as well). In those 4 years against a WDC Hamilton won 3-1, despite facing multiple misfortunes. Then of course some WDCS are better than others. Alonso is widely regarded as one of the best drivers in f1 EVER - he has made absolute mincemeat of all of his opponents aside from Hamilton. Im sure you can see the difference between the two situations here. Hell, even senna didn't always beat his team mate, which according to something aircon said earlier - a great driver never loses to his team mate. Tell that to schumacher too - who lost to Rosberg. For the record, I have always maintained that Rosberg is a decent driver - espcecially in terms of qualy pace - just that hamilton is much better in the race and I sitll maintain that he is scared of Hams superior race craft (look at him trying to win the race in 1 corner in SOchi and his butchered overrtake monouvre that took ham out of beligum.) Firstly, winning a WDC in a great car is no amazing feat. We all know that. Reasons I rate Hamiltons attempt higher; firstly; his team mate is actually allowed to fight back and isn't a designated number 2 like Webber was (not officially but team orders did come into play and Webber suffered lionshare of reliability issues). LIkewise, Hamilton is beating Rosberg despite suffering the majority of reliability issues this season himself. The other reason goes along the lines of what Alonso said; He said that he rates Ham better than Vettel and that when Vettel gets in an average car that should onyl do 5th-6th and wins the race then he will rate him higher. Hamilton won some races in a piece of sht mclaren. The jury was out on Vettel - if he had proved himself this year with his average RB then I would have rated him far higher than I currently do. Why is winning in a different car more prestigious? In modern f1 dominance seems to go in cycles - ferrari, then RB then now merc. Periods of utter dominance for about 4-5 years and as long as a semi decent driver is in said car and his opponent is worse than him then he will be WDC. If you can remain focused over long periods of time and get 2 different teams working behind you that obviously should be rated more highly than conseecutive back to back WDCS by a driver in the same team. People have often marvelled at Fangios achievements in this regard so I doubt Im alone in thinking this. We do not know. We must take things at face value at the time and then revise our expectations later. Currently ricciardo hasn't proved himself but when and if he does that will change our perceptions. Likewise, schumachers rep dropped a little after losing to Rosberg for 3 years in a row but now his reputation has been slightly restored given Rosberg is doing better than everyone expected against Hamilton (albeit his success looks better than it is given Hamiltons bad luck this season - 9-4 in race victories it still remains). It would have looked bad for Alonso in 2007 when Hamilton beat him but now not at all. Rating drivers is an inexact science but unlike most of the folk on here, who just giggle and flirt with one another, I at least make a credible effort and try analyse things as best I can. As said above, I rate these WDCS very highly. Alonso beat Schumacher (albeit in a different car but imo the ferrari was the slightly better car) when schumacher was still driving and arguably around his prime (maybe not quite - his primse probably 95-99 or so). But clearly Alonso is one of the best. Rosberg has proved himself to be a very steady and formidble opponent although lacking in racecraft. Button is bloody consistent - not the quickest in qualy but very consistent, great racecraft and very good in the wet. You have made a very credible point here. Certainly solidifies the view that rating drivers across generations is a rather inexact science. Best way to do so is perhaps to see how they performed against their contemporaries. Yes I do agree you must see drivers in their period. Certainly makes a lot of sense. Which goes back to my original point that Stewart was beaten by Hill twice and in all his championships he had a far superior car (as did Hamilton, Schumacher and Vettel and everybdoy else) but the difference is his team mates were completely no namers with barely a podium to their name and then there was Cervert - who as a desiganted number 2 who would not pass him. That is the CONTEXT in which his results were achieved. All but 1-2 of his victories were achieved in a great car against these opponents. In counterposition, Hamilton, received his victories in the following manner; in 2007 many against a very great opponent - one of the best in f1. in 2008 his team mate sucked. 2009-2012 his car sucked but he did well to scavenge a few wins here and there as did his WDC team mate. Think he had nicole problems one yaer which affected performance but thats his own fault for not dealing with it. then 2013 - **** car but partnered with a DECENT driver who bested schumacher (rosberg not on level of the very greats but definitely more dangerous than Stewarts opponents - who either sucked or were desiganted #2). Now 2014 - great car -DECENT team mate. So certainly a little mixture but far more a challenge than stewart faced. MOST of his wins were against good opponents. Great car for 3 seasons that is all. Managed to get number of wins in sht car still against good team mates. ONly had one sht team mate. Yet people cant see why I think Ham is most successful british driver of all time. The stats clearly support me as does the context. I dont think hamilton is "way above all of them like schu or senna were in their time" etc. This whole discussion started because people jumped on me for saying ham most successful british driver of all time. I have said I rate schu, senna, prost, fangio, alonso etc very highly. Yet somehow the perception that I think ham is the best of all time has come out of this discussion, simply not so. If i had to rate best of all time Ham would be in top 10 for sure. Fangio I find too hard to place correctly because it was so long ago. I would rate senna and schumacher above Hamilton. Prost perhaps on par. Alonso on par.
OMG...again, that's not what I said. You're hilarious. I'm sitting here laughing at your misquotes and constant poor comprehension.
If the search function extended past 250 posts I would go and find what you said. Too bad it doesn't.
I read somewhere that Graham Hill did "soundly" beat Jackie Stewart when they were team mates at BRM. Here again, statistics don't show the whole picture. In 1965, G.Hill - in his 8th year in F1 - finished 3rd in the WDC, having collected 2 wins and 40pts. Newcomer Jackie Stewart finished 3rd in the WDC with 33pts and 1 win. From a beginner compared to an experience racer, I wouldn't call that "soundly" beaten. In fact Stewart was learning his craft and challenging Hill very hard towards the end if the season. The next year was the change of formula, to 3L engines. BRM tried their H16 engine and was plagued by engine breakages, resorting to a 2L Tasman engine for most of the season. Both drivers has a disastrous season. That year Graham Hill finished 6th, with just one 2nd place to show. Jackie Stewart who was injured in a crash in Belgium and missed several GPs, still finished 7th and collected one win at Monaco. "Soundly beaten" ? I think not ! Here again, the stats don't reflect the facts.
I think that Stirling Moss could have done a lot better, and probably won one or two WDCs had he not been advised by his manager -Ken Gregory -to sign a contract with BP that prevented him accepting some drives. After factory drives with Mercedes and Maserati, Moss signed a 10-year contract with British Petroleum. Apart from drives with BRM and Vanwall, also with BP, he was prevented to accept offers from Lotus (with ESSO), or even Ferrari (SHELL). Ken Gregory and Alfred Moss formed BRP to allow Stirling to race, but he preffered to race for Rob Walker's private team instead, winning several GPs in the process, against incredible odds. He became freelance in sport cars, drove for Jaguar, Aston Martin, Maserati, CAMORADI, Walker, Cunnibgham, UDT-Laystall, etc... Moss in turn took Cooper and Lotus to the winning rostrum on privately entered cars, before the factories could manage it! On an obsolete private Lotus, Moss humiliated the Scuderia Ferrari TWICE in 1961, probably his peak year. His string of wins on different makes and in different disciplines mark him as an exceptional driver, something the stats don't fully reflect.
This is what I mean, his choice of cars was not always the best, especially compared to Fangios who obviously always knew where to go next. To be honest I did not know that much about the BP contract so thanks for the information. Still I personally rate him more as a sports car hero than a F1 hero but most likely because I never saw him racing in his active career (the one that ended after Goodwood 1962, not the one officially ended two years ago ) It is still great to see him several times a year and I am always impressed when a man of 85 years is literally heft into the car because he is not light on his feet but still drives vintage machinery with unsynchronized gearbox with ease. It is also great to see how popular he still is, be it at Goodwood or in Brescia at the Mille Miglia.
Why are you swearing Pete, cool your jets, I asked some simple question's, I'am sorry it appears you are having a problem with that, so maybe I better leave you to stir your stew
I always swear....I'm sorry if it offended your delicate demeanour Nevertheless, I note you didn't bother rereading my post and amending yours to make it sensical
