Will Lewis' career have an asterisk?

That settles it then - you are officially clueless.

This whole thread is just another pointless thread meant to troll - that is all that it is, just like the so many other threads under the F1 category. This whole F1 section on F-Chat has gone to hell in a handbasket, and I cannot believe the moderators allow such crap on here. It is baffling.

 

Perhaps you should look in the mirror instead...

 

You are a big time Hamilton fanboy, always have been. There is nothing wrong with saying he isn't in the MSC/Senna/Prost/Fangio tier. I don't think he is, and I don't think Vettel is, either. I think both are very good drivers (top 15 ish all time), but they are not in that rare air just yet and have been flattered by dominant equipment for extended stretches of time.

 

Sorry but NO. If Lewis ever drive for the Scuderia, I will 100% stop supporting the Scuderia until he doesn't drive for them anymore.

 

He won't ever drive for us so no need to worry about it.

 

I'm not a "fanboy" of any driver currently racing. I haven't been a so-called fanboy of any driver since 1994, when Senna died. Having said that, I can recognize a good or great driver when I see one, and whether I like him or not makes no difference.

Senna had the best car when he won his WCs. Schumey had the best car when he won his WCs. Prost had the best car, etc, etc. You see a recurring theme here?

 

Best car doesn't equal the level of domination of Mercedes. I have the numbers. It is unprecedented. So please don't act like "oh it's just winning in the best car, what's new" because their statistics since the dawn of 2014 have been the most dominant in the history of Formula One.

 

Always the same ****. If you don't admit Hamilton is a GOAT you must be trolling.

 

Exactly. The difference between having the fastest car and having that Mercedes is the time difference to the next fastest car. Stroll and Palmer would've been multiple WDC's had they sat in those cars 2014 to 2016.

 

Nope, there are many threads in the F1 section that I feel are trolling threads that have nothing to do with Hamilton. You know, like all of the "this driver" sucks threads......

FYI: I think Senna is the GOAT. Any thread in this section that claims that Hamilton is just an ordinary driver is a trolling thread. You cannot actually believe it. Not if you have a clue about F1, or are able to recognize talent.

 

He's not ordinary that's been said plenty of times. Just not as special as some think.

The drivers sucks threads have been around for years, even about Ferrari drivers and so on. They're there, if you can't stomach them don't look.

 

I agree, and you have been on here long enough to post some home truths.

 

Just for kicks, let's look at the numbers for 4 year stretches for F1's recent "dominant eras"

Ferrari (2001-2004)

Won 47 out of a possible 68 races in that span for a 69.1% win rate.
Took 40 out of a possible 68 poles in that span for a 58.8% pole rate.

Red Bull (2010-2013)

Won 41 out of a possible 77 races in that span for a 53.2% win rate.
Took 52 out of a possible 77 poles in that span for a 67.5% pole rate.

Finally, we have Mercedes.

Mercedes (2014-2017)

Won 62 out of a possible 77 races in that span for a 80.5% win rate.
Took 69 out of a possible 77 poles in that span for a scarcely believable 89.6% pole rate.

Hamilton has been driving unquestionably the most dominant car in the history of Formula 1, and before this he drove a WDC capable car every year except for 2 (2009 and 2013, though those were both still race winning machines). I find it funny when people (especially the ever-hating British press) used to try to denigrate MSC's achievements because "he drove dominant cars" when Lewis Hamilton has driven better machinery over the course of his career than anyone. Ever. And it's not really close.

 

FCHAT logic

It's Lewis' fault he's won so many races!!!!

 

How about stats on McLaren in the Prost/Senna years, late '80s, early '90s? How about Williams, in the Hill/Villeneuve/Mansell/Prost era? Would love to see how those compare.......

 

Wrong, Prost didn't have the best car when he won in 86, Mansell ans Piquet did, Senna didn't have the best car when he won in 91, mansell did, Shumacher didn't have the best car when he won in 94 and 95, Hill did.

 

Sure -

McLaren (1988-1991)

Won 39 out of 64 races for a 60.9% win rate
Took 52 out of 64 poles for a 81.2% pole rate

Williams (1992-1995)

Won 32 out of 65 races for a 49.2% win rate
Took 48 out of 65 poles for a 73.8% pole rate

 

So you have proven that even the best drivers need a good or the best car in the field to win a title, that far it is true.
But the argumentum e contrario that everyone winning in the best car is automatically the best driver is simply wrong
And the Mercedes of the last 4 years was obviously that good that even a "suboptimal" driver like Rosberg could win the title with it....So we are still waiting for an argument why Lewis should be considered in the same league of Senna, Schumacher, Prost or Fangio...

 

Did I mention '86? I specifically said late '80s, early '90s. How you pull 1986 out of that, I wouldn't know. 1989 if you want me to be more specific for Prost. Then again in the Williams for Prost's last WDC. How about Senna in '88 and '91?

I like how your first word is "wrong", and you go on to talk about all of the years I wasn't talking about.

 

It certainly is not his fault, that is why he has his stats and 4 WDC
...but is it really his achievement either? And here is the question whether these 4 WDC put him in the top 5 of the GOAT list. This is the question and nothing else.
Nobody over her wants to take away his WDC just as nobody takes them away from Vettel but one might question whether these are the same caliber as a Senna or a Schumacher...I doubt.

 

In a sport where it is 75% the car, 25% the driver, the car is incredibly important. Now a driver can win a WDC in the best car, ala Damon Hill, and the car will be the only reason why he won it. That is why he only won 1 WDC. When a driver wins multiple WDCs (3 or more), it goes well beyond the car.

 

I would say 91 it's "early 90s", and late 80s it's a very vague concept, it only tells me you refer to the second half of the decade.....

"Senna had the best car when he won his WCs. Schumey had the best car when he won his WCs. Prost had the best car, etc, etc. You see a recurring theme here?"

You wrote this sentence correct? Well, you were wrong.

 

Not really, Damon had the chance to win 2 titles, he won one, but if like Hamilton he had had a dominant car over a longer period of time, he would most probably would have won more titles. So even if damon is a much less talented driver than Elton, he could still go on to win multiple titles providing he had a superior car for several years.