You are obsessed with your stats...but still you failed to explain how you seperate the drivers input and the cars input in the success. And by simply saying: the best driver gets the best car you make it yourself to easy. Keep the example Hamilton: without doubt he earned a seat in the Mercedes but nobody (especially not him) could have known that the car will be that dominant. So what would be your conclusion if for some reasons the Mercedes would have not become that dominant? Hamilton would be still a 1x WDC instead of 3(4)x... Would it have made him a worse driver? No, only a less successful Now as he is a 3xWdc, does it make him better? No, only more successful Best example against your stats: Stirling Moss. According to you he is nothing as he never won a single WDC. But you never ask WHY...Because he was either in the wrong car or he was driving against the one who was better than him: Fangio.
I edited my post. When you strip stats away you are left with several things that determine an all time great (to me): 1.) Multiple instances where a driver performed in a manner that no one else among his peers could equal and possibly no driver in history could equal - AKA not one "fluke" where they happened to be brilliant that day 2.) The ability to extract the maximum out of the equipment at all times 3.) The wet weather ability of the driver (in which cars are the most "equalized" they will be and results are more dependent on driver's skill) 4.) The ability to be great for an extended period of time - consistency 5.) The opinion of the driver's peers on his talent 5.) The effect of the driver on the sport as a whole
The poll is from late 2009 I believe. To be in the top 20 after 3 seasons in f1 is pretty good. Do the poll again at end of this year and he will be in the top 5. Vettel isn't even in the top 40 I don't think which is obviously wrong Glad you're all agreeing that Schumachers 5 titles with Ferrari don't mean much. Any good driver could win in the class of the field with team orders and a non competitive team mate. His achievements in that car just give him some statistics to add to his greatness. Was clear before his Ferrari days he was one of the best, giving him a top car let him show his talent further same with Hamilton
Wrong Wrong Difference between Schumacher and Hamilton: Schumacher did something (testing) to make this car dominant, Hamilton did nothing at all (unless you think singing makes this car faster). Hamiltons achievement in the Mercedes could be compared to Vettels in the Red Bull, but not to Schumachers in the Ferrari! Schumacher was a big part of the team that brought back Ferrari in the winners list after two decades off and he invested much more into that than Hamilton by signing up at Mercedes waiting for the rules to change in favour of his new employer.
I think, other than stats, the best way to rank drivers is how much more than their contemporaries they were getting paid. And I think MS easily wins that as well. Alonso would do pretty well too in that contest but Hamilton has never been paid that much more than Vettel, Alonso or even his teammates.
You also need to remember that the modern formula makes it harder for individual standout performances. If you look at the first f1 races the difference between cars were huge it was not uncommon for 15 seconds to separate the qualifying field and some cars to finish 4 laps down. Look at the 2016 British gp, 3 seconds separate the entire grid in qualy. Or with the ground effect turbo cars in qualy with engines turned up some cars would be 200hp down on others - now 40hp is huge As time goes on the grid slowly bunches up. Add in fuel limits (barrichello in Aussie 2010 catching Schumacher and passing him at 2 seconds a lap because he was running low fuel) and now cars make passing much harder too with aero and having a number two driver is no longer common place. The days of someone lapping the field up to second are gone. The cars are closer together, the drivers are much better and professional, no more number two drivers on a sub optimum strategy and the regulations simply prevent it
Moss is more deserving of respect than many world champions. Apart from his year at Mercedes, and maybe a stint at Maserati, Moss won most of his GPs driving for private teams against factories, often with cars one or 2 years old. Moss gave Cooper its first GP win in a private car, against the factory Cooper, but also the factory Ferrari, Maserati, BRM, etc... Moss gave Lotus its first GP win also, against all the factories, including Team Lotus. In 1961, with an engine giving at least 50hp to the opposition, Moss defeated the all-conquering Ferrari team on the 2 most demanding circuits on the calendar: Monaco and the Nurburgring. Also Moss lost the 1958 title, because he supported the appeal against disqualification of his rival Hawthorn. Hawthorn was reinstated and won the tile, thanks to Moss' sportmanship. Moss is considered a great driver, not because of stats, but because of the way he drove and won races.
Okay I see Vettel is 26th. Clearly still not accurate. I dislike the guy and still have him around 10-11th. Pretty sure the poll was from late 2009 or early 2010 though doubt I'm wrong about that. Testing was banned in the Hamilton era so you can't count that against him. In terms of what they had to do on the track I think 5 consecutive WDCs in a dominant car, with a bad team mate, team orders and against a talent depleted grid was far easier than what Hamilton had to do - not saying winning in the merc is hard but at least he has competition that's decent and allowed to fight him In my view Schumacher does not have as much natural talent as Hamilton (still had buckets of it obviously but his work ethic was huge unlike Hamilton), I think years of testing in that Ferrari benefited him pace wise and gave him an advantage, granted he was willing to work for it but doubt he would have been as quick comparative to his opposition if testing was banned.
Thank you for going into detail. This was exactly what I meant... This is also why at almost 87 he is remembered by a lot of people although his career is of a different era. Last Sunday at Pebble Beach, guess who got the most applause when entering the stage...Sir Stirling Moss.
Your arguments are as entertaining as ever. The exact same stuff is what your children will use when talking about the Hamilton aera when praising their hero in the future.
Only in your dream there are 5-6 places in between Vettel and Hamilton. Hamilton did nothing Vettel did not do before. You remember that Hamilton won his WDC against Kovallainen and Rosberg rather than against Alonso or Button. It is funny that you say that in Schumachers days the field was "talent depleted" in conparison to the field today when you said on others occassions that even Vettel (runner up behind the Mercedes for the last 2 years) is "average". And Rosberg is "decent" when it suits you, otherwise he is "3-4 seconds slower in the rain". Question is why Schumacher dominated the grid in the wet and your hero Lewis was overtaken by Vettel in a Toro Rosso when it counted? Schumacher jumped into the Jordan on short notice and put it on 7th in qualy, certainly a sign of lacking talent...Do you actually believe all that???
I doubt my children will care about f1 maulaf. I'm the only person I know that likes it. No one watches it in my country.
Hamiltons title was won against massa and Kimi who had a better car than the McLaren Lewis drove not his team mate. Rosberg is no slouch I've always said he is very fast but he sucks in the rain and his racecraft is less than to be desired. An old Schumacher or not, he certainly put him in his place. Hamilton scored wins and poles against button and alonso which make up his f1 stats whereas Schumacher got the easy road. If kovaleinen was at McLaren for Te button and alonso years Hamilton would be a 4 times WDC already and have 60 plus wins to his name I believe Vettel is one dimensional because he needs cars to be set up a certain way to be fast same with Kimi. Hamilton made an error in tire selection and started near the back of the grid otherwise Vettel would not have won his torro rosso race. Vettel is good in the rain sure but in my view Hamilton is better in the rain overall - if the car doesn't suit Vettel he isn't quick Where did I say Schumacher had no talent? I believe he has less natural talent than Hamilton but he's a harder worker. Where did no talent come into it? I rank Schumacher as a better driver than Hamilton always have
TBH, I don't blame them - pretty bad record in the US - the Michelin controversy winning the prize. Not the best way to treat fans spending their money travelling IMHO no matter who was to blame. Best, Sammy
I live in New Zealand and we get decent coverage on sky but people only care about sweaty men hugging eAchother (rugby)
I was talking about Brazil, not Vettels victory So you might need an other excuse How do you know about Schumachers natural talent? How did he put the Jordan on 7th without natural talent because there was obviously nothing to achieve with hard work when you are thrown in like he was. The feeling in the rain is something one has (Strietzel Stuck called it the Popometer), nothing one does achieve by hard work. Schumacher had it, much more than Hamilton will ever have. So I still do not see where you rate Hamiltons natural talent higher...But on the other side you might have this opinion exclusive anyway, so why bother...
We know, you don't either. It shows in the unfounded and misguided rubbish you've just spouted about the actual GOAT, one Michael Schumacher. How can you keep a straight face while claiming Michael had little natural talent, it was all down to the car and testing? Do you really believe this total trash? Schumacher won races in crap cars he had no business to be top ten, let alone first. He won in circumstances NO ONE else would have had a sniff in. He wiped out excellent teammates, HE MADE them number two by being so much better and faster than everyone he came across. Can you see Elton stuck in fifth gear, yet still finding a way around the problem and winning? No chance. He'd park it and publish his telemetry on Twitter, while complaining to Charlie whiting that he saw Nico run over a white line in first practice and could he be disqualified too. Your grand deity Elton hasn't got much more talent than anyone else in f1 currently, and a lot less than some of them. He lucked into a truly dominant car (only the 2002 and 2004 ferraris could be seen as in any way dominant in reality, and it certainly wasn't like the merc today), and is reaping rewards of a few titles which any half decent driver could win given the equipment. The guys reputation within the teams aside from his few friends is diabolical, I have spoken with people at merc, MacLaren, Ferrari and other teams who can't stand Elton the man, while respecting the speed he does have. He is an immoral little napoleon who disrespected Ron Dennis, the man who paid his way into f1 and backed him without question over various drivers and to the detriment of his own reputation with sponsors. He regularly is prepared to throw his team to the lions over decisions he doesn't agree with, throws his toys out the pram when something goes wrong, and has some kind of mindset that has him convinced he is a legend within his own mind despite the number of mistakes he makes week in week out. Schumacher is a true GOAT, the true champion, and I think it's offensive to even mention comparing him to Elton at all, he hasn't got a tenth of the class, nor the talent, of the master
Based on what? Even if he had pole or 2nd, whose to say that Vettel wouldn't win the race? He was on a different planet that day. As usual you make pointless and baseless assumptions to take away from others and hand it to your golden boy. It rained all day, Monza is an easy track to overtake on, and he had the fastest car that year...he had 53 laps and only got the 7th, yet the (in your eyes) completely average Raikkonen finished just 10 seconds down in 9th.
This kid is still trying to compare Hamilton with Schumacher. Lol. Please give it a rest. Just when I think this thread is dead toil goes and toils it again
Oh ffs I said Schumacher had bucket loads of natural talent and now I'm being accused of saying the complete opposite. In my view Hamilton has more natural talent - the speed he has over one lap is greater than Schumacher in my opinion. He wasted his time partying and staying up late and still wins and puts the car on pole. Schumacher is like ronaldo works hard and talented. Messi doesn't work as hard but is more talented. I think senna was the most talented driver ever but I think Hamilton has a lot of natural talent. More than Schumacher in my view but I'm not saying Schumacher had little he clearly was very talented Geez
150 million $ isn't that well? ROFL PS: At his time with Ferrari Irvine was one of the richest drivers ever. Does that reflect his talent?
So the kid that says he never watched F1 before Hamilton is going to "educate" me now on the history. Gold.
Kimi wasn't **** back then. As I said a few posts earlier in the other thread, I viewed him as a top 20 all time driver before his comeback The McLaren car was faster than the torro Rosso (clearly). Based on Hamilton and vettels performances throughout their careers the worst one can really say is they are equals (I disagree obviously). If Hamilton and Vettel were side by side on that grid in those cars and you were all were given a million dollars to bet on not one of you would bet Vettel. Just common sense
