Is Lewis Hamilton the greatest of all time, why or why not?

The reason I think Fangio is the best is as follows:
Because I have followed F1 my entire life, I've been to over 100 F-1 Races, have met a lot of people who worked and raced in F-1, and have read countless books and watched footage ( which is not hard to find ) I've seen the cars Fangio and is compatriots drove up close and in person. the fact that he won more % of races than anyone else that he entered - especially since the number of races have quadrupled over time, the cars were harder to drive, with outrageous speed potential, exotic fuels and skinny tires - requiring both courage and skill, and he lived to be an old man - shows how good he was.

I read your posts and it smacks me of a young person saying because your "data" shows x that has to be true... there is not much in life that is proved right or wrong with raw data - it has to be translated and used practically - which is where experience comes in. I fear there is a lack of experience on your part. Data can be interpreted any way you like... It's my belief you are wrong. Also you did say that F1 was less competitive in the 50's which is just crazy wrong.... but your data des not prove that. I don't think further discourse on this is helpful, so I'm bowing out. I truly hope you can see past your data sets... enjoy F-1 as much as you like.

 

The Fangio win % is still quite amazing... and to think that back then there was what - 6- 8 grand prix per year - one of them being Indy... the other thing to remember is teams were larger - and ran more cars... The one thing Fangio had going for him was you could literally change cars in mid race... so his chances of finishing were higher. but still with the lack of mechanical reliability - its an amazing stat. I think Fangio had the best knack of being in the right car at the right time.... the other one is Clark - at 34% - and he only raced from 1960 to 68... Hamilton's stats are impressive but also improved due to the number of races... so clearly from drivers active today - he is the best.

 

Just because you don't like the math that shows Lewis has the best win to race ratio, doesn't make it BS... it just makes it impossible to argue he is not the best mathamaticly. Also, to answer your question above....ALL THE DRIVER'S want to be in the best car, that is part of the skill to managing your success as a race car driver. Lewis made a bold choice when he went to MB. Could have gone either way. Big risk big reward (Seb and Fred know about this with their choices all to well)

 

I thank you for answering with your reasons, I honestly appreciate that. To me, the reasons you give help reassure that my way of forming an opinion or conclusion is more credible than your way, but truthfully we are probably closer to the same path than we both realize. I don't think its right to defend my reasons or dismiss yours by any sort of simple and rude "I'm right, you're wrong" statement, so I'll quickly break down the why.

It sounds like you are confident in your opinions based on your experience following F1.
- You followed F1 your entire life, that's awesome and you are undoubtedly a great F1 fan. I don't know your age, but I highly doubt you were at least a mature teenager in the early 1950s to follow those races. Plus I am quite certain information about the races were not easily available in that time, given how many families didn't have TV's, there was no internet, and racing news in Europe probably didn't find its way into most news papers across the world.
- You went to over 100 races. I hope in other conversations you can share some stories of those times. However I would hold more credibility on a race review to anyone that watched any of those 100 races on TV to someone that was there live.
- Read countless books. If you have any recommendations, please share. I'd love to read statements from drivers that raced with Fangio or at least journalists that at least covered those races.
- What footage have you found? The cars didn't have onboard cameras during the races, but I've seen a few onboards during testing, none long enough to even show a full single lap.
- Seeing the old 1950s F1 cars in person has what relevance on how good Fangio was? I can understand it giving an appreciation for anyone and everyone that drove those cars. Like you said, basically high powered boats on pizza cutter tires.

You discredit if I use data, but you talk about his winning percentage. I have never understood the argument that "data can be interpreted any way you like" when data is the only facts that we have to go off. So to dismiss the data, facts, or math if it doesn't suit your argument, but suggest your opinion is more valuable based on your history of being a fan. I don't understand that. I am not specifically talking about you, its something I've heard from many people.

I believe his winning % does mean something. There is a reason why it's so high. Statistics point analysts and fans in the direction to determine greatness and for the most part is generally true. It's why so many people consider Lewis Hamilton is the GOAT, because of his unmatched statistics. I completely agree with you that simple statistics and data are subject to inspection and interpretation and has to be filtered through a certain amount objective connecting the dots so to speak. I agree that "experience", or at least knowledge of history is valuable to the study of the data.

Stating that F1 in the 50s was less competitive is 100% true. I gave examples already of the speed between drivers/cars being 15, 18, 20+ seconds different. That alone ends the conversation. The driving talent pool is impossible to be the same as it is today because the tools, resources, and accessibility are nowhere near comparable. Also most entries didn't even complete the full season. In 1950, only 4 drivers, yes four!, competed in every race (excluding Indy).

The fact that Fangio didn't get killed in an auto race doesn't necessarily show the level of greatness to me, as a lot of drivers survived, and not all were great.

I completely agree with the cars being extremely hard to drive, and who could question the courage these guys had? It's off the charts. I tend to agree the cars are harder to drive than in modern cars. This can work for or against the argument in how good a driver is. A great talent will rise to the top when driving a difficult car, and thus it can be easier to win when there aren't as good of drivers to compete against. On the other hand it can be much much harder to find the last tenth or two needed to beat the other drivers who are all driving "easy" to drive cars. Look at Verstappen, he admits it is harder to win in Sim Racing than real life and who is ever going to suggest a sim racer is one of the greatest drivers in history?

Anyways, we both have our views and opinions of why Fangio is or is not in the top group of all time greats. We aren't going to change each others minds, and really that was never the point, at least not to me. Giving reasons to why you or I believe one way, or reasons why we disagree with the other is interesting, and I welcome those conversations.

 

I'd like to add something to your post,. The fact that Fangio, and Moss as well survived that era, does mean a lot! In those days, a mistake usualy meant a serious injury, many times your own life. The fact that Fangio raced for so long, at the very top, and survived almost without a serious accident means he barely made any mistakes. Moss ended his carreer as a result of an accident but that was not his fault, but a car failure. Many others died and almost all of them as a result of a mistake os some sort of misunderstanding. Collins, Trips, Hawthorne (although on a public road), Portago, and so many others died as a consequence of an accident. The fact that Fangio survived and drove for a long period of time is testimony to his skill (just as Nuvolari before him).
Fangio's victory at the nurburgring against the Ferraris would be enough to put him amongst the very top of f.1 drivers.

 

Putting Hamilton to the side, lets roast Vettel for a second.

He won 4 titles, yes, but so did Prost. Anybody that can seriously compare Vettel's titles with Prost's titles as being of equal value is high on fanboyism. You can like Vettel and his accomplishments, but don't put among the greats.

This is what I'm talking about when I say stats are very deceiving in racing.

 

I'm not saying that the fact he survived offers nothing to his claim to greatness, I just don't think it is a defining factor since as I said, he wasn't the only one. But it is worth noting that he was able to drive his cars quicker than other drivers and still kept it on the road, avoiding the always incredibly dangerous crashes. Fortunately he did race mostly from the front, which has always proven to be the best place to be to avoid racing crashes.

Nurburgring 1957 absolutely has to be one of the greatest drives in F1 history. Sure he and his car was quite a lot faster than the competition, and his soft tires/mid race pitstop strategy was going be fast on track, he still had throw caution to the wind and lay down some blistering laps to come back from 48 seconds down. Factor that was done on the Ring, which is scary enough today. Incredibly impressive.

 

I think Vettel is a great example of how you can't simply look at the big in your face stats like wins and championships. When you break it down you start to see how much of that success came from his car, but also that he was quite a one dimensional driver. He was very very fast, he showed some impressive speed in 08 and 09, but once he had a car built to his liking in balance, and one that was a rocketship in outright pace. Him and the car was perfect for unreal speed in quali or in the first few laps of a race, as he was all about clean air. Put him in racing with some pressure and he started to crumble. Though his drive in Brazil 2012 was pretty incredible.

Also his 4 world championships could have easily been just 2. 2010 Alonso was so close, 2012 Alonso probably should have won it, and maybe the championship would have been tighter if Pirelli didnt change the tires in 2013 which suited Red Bull.

 

I'm pretty sure this is my last response to you.

I'm 54. as a child I attended every USGP at Watkins Glen from 1968 to 1980. also was at Long beach until 1982, Detroit, etc. and then had the chance to follow F-1 across the world from 1983 - to 1987 and then again in 1990 and some in 92 and 93. then occasionally since then races here and there mostly in Europe or North America. Many of the races in the 80's were at the side of the track with full FIA photo credentials - that gave you access to the paddock and pits - and the people.

So yea, I'm confident in my knowledge of F1 and I also feel - and know that when I talk about F-1 and its History I know what I'm talking about from real-life experience. I've seen the great drivers in person - that includes Stewart, Lauda, Prost, Senna Schumacher, and Hamilton. actually have met all those one-to-one. None of that matters because History is real - it really happened and your statistical data interpretation of 2022 means nothing.

Your note that you don't understand how people can disregard data over Opinion is because the data has to be interpreted by someone with the experience and knowledge... you can make any data points seem more important when taken out of historical context.... from F-1 to stock futures.

At the end of the day - it does not matter what you or I think about Fangio... he's dead. However, when or if either of us has the opportunity to talk with real knowledgeable -people about F-1 - like those who are in F-1 ... I'm 100% sure they will hear my logic and fully agree, and they will hear your logic and simply leave.

 

oh and one more thing. In the 50's you could get racing news from the NY Times - and Herald Tribune, it was regularly reported by them and then about 2 weeks after by Racing News, Road and Track, and what eventually became Autoweek. when I was a kid, that is how you found out what happened... and I believed it all because it was true... even with no video.

 

It sounds like you had a very fortunate life following F1, all the power to you. Like I said, I am sure you have some fascinating stories to tell. I don't believe that your experiences in watching races live or the fact you met some drivers qualifies your opinion above one that is based off facts. It takes nothing away from those experiences, and I am sure you are very knowledgeable of the sport.

Evidently it does matter what you or I think about Fangio, as it seems to ruffle some feathers for some reason.

I am in full agreement that a lot of people would put Fangio inside the top 3 of greatest of all time, but not because of logic, but because it is popular opinion. Most things in life, especially now days are judged on a popularity contest. The fact that Hamilton is widely regarded as the greatest because of his inflated major stats and his popularity shows the lack of logic.

 

I have to a disagree. I'll take spirot 's eyewitness opinion over one based OFF facts any day of the week. Now, one based ON facts, well, that's a different story.

.....as in.....

Hamilton is not regarded as the greatest due to inflated stats (off fact). It's so* because the stats are based on facts; they can all be confirmed......(no inflation).

(* Not my opinion, Jim will always be my GOAT for numerous reasons, not least of all his personality)

 

R & T, C & D, were my main sources (two months after races, not weeks) 'til, in '68, my slot car racing buddy (in Queens) turned me on to the weekly:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

Then, at their concession stand at the '85 Miami GP, I found out about the bi-weekly:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

'Miss 'em both.

 

I assume you don't mean his eyewitness of Fangio, since that didn't happen. I do have a few questions for you.

If I told you about the Grand Prix's I attended, and told you from my seat in the stands, Hamilton really wasn't very impressive and extremely over rated. Would you believe me? Or what if I said Schumacher looked ordinary?

Do you feel that a single point of view at a live grand prix gives as much or better coverage as the televised broadcast?

Lewis Hamilton has 103 poles and 103 wins. We know that he has enjoyed a dominant car for the better part of the last 8 years. With the exception of the shortened 2020 season, each of those seasons had 19-22 races. Fangio has the highest winning percent in F1 history but won just 24 times, but in only 52 events. Would you not agree that Hamilton's season statistics were amplified by the simple fact he got to run in 3 times as many races per season, especially while in a dominant car? What about Hamilton's career points? Besides the number of races per season I just mentioned, should we not account for the points system has changed a few times, and more points are awarded now than ever before? The value of a win is 25 points today, when it was just 8 points in 1957. This is the definition of inflation. I don't this can be argued as opinion since is there anything I just said that is not a fact?

 

I've barked up this tree so many times it's not even funny. This part of the facts is always conveniently brushed aside as ''irrelevant''. .

 

...and Juan-manuel was 46 at the time, which was the combined ages of both Ferrari drivers...

(remember that Tony Brooks did almost the same race, against both Ferraris, at the same track, one year later)

Rgds

 

The narrative that Hamilton is the greatest of all time just started to ruin:

 

You may be right, of course, and I said myself that Hamilton's decline started in 2021, but I wouldn't draw too hasty conclusions after just one day of pre-season testing.
After all, Max Verstappen was only 9th today, behind Vettel, Tsunoda and Alonso, and I don't think that correctly reflect his standing.
The cars are probably not totally tuned up and trimmed. Also, we don't know their respective fuel loads.
There is a lot more to come ...

 

yep grew up on Autoweek - the news paper - could not wait until I saw it in the mail.

 

Wasaaaaay to early to tell who's what and where.

Let's wait till 5 GP's to get a good read of the cars and drivers.

 

The total reliance on logic in my experience is only 1/2 the story - and 1/4 of a life. good luck.

 

+1000
People saying statistics are everything knows nothing about this sport.

 

A) Mainly, my post had nothing to do with Fangio. It was a lighthearted jab at your use of "based off fact" as opposed to based on fact.

Erstwhile......

B) No, I would not. I've seen them also and I also base my analysis on facts (his stats), not just my impression..

C) Sometimes yes, sometimes no. 'Depends on what's being discussed at the time.

D) This one's a tad tougher. I understand the differences in scoring and number of races. That's not inflation as it doesn't "rise" during the course of a season. I also understand the greater number of opportunities has increased. I consider someone's stats being inflated as someone falsely making them greater, not just because the system changes over the years.
Anywho, that's why percentages (actually, more accurately, percentiles) are so important; so one can compare performance over a different number of opportunities; as in a person getting 8 correct answers on a ten question test being equivalent to one with 24 correct of 30 questions......both 80 percentile.

 

I am glad you would not take my word for it. My opinion of what I saw should not prevent you from using your own eyes and brain. But I did find it interesting that you said you would take spirot's opinion of what he has seen over a collection of data that is available to anyone and everyone.

I do think percentages/percentiles often mean more than the totals as well. My point is it is an unfair to simply compare career wins or poles or points to other greats like Fangio, Clark, or even Schumacher when the number of races have dramatically increased, careers run longer, and point systems have changed. Hence my use of the world inflated, as if Hamilton raced on the old traditional 16 races per year, his career race wins based on percentage would still be less than Schumachers. If that was the case, then less people would currently be saying Hamilton is undeniably the GOAT.

 

Competition has changed. There were years when the field was objectively deeper with talent, on both a constructor basis and driver basis.

Prost had to win his titles when McLaren, Williams, Ferrari, Brabham, and Lotus were all building championship level cars, or fighting at the front. Schumi also was in an era where people often forget how good the Williams, McLaren's, and Renaults were against Ferrari.

But then something changed between 2005-2009. Williams went to hell after BMW dumped them and JPM and Ralf left. They never recovered to championship form. McLaren was on borrowed time as the Mercedes factory backed squad after Spygate, and then of course the disaster with Honda. Renault were ruined by Crashgate, and they had to settle for backing RBR, after Flavio and Symonds got the boot.

Our problems since Brawn, Schumi, and Bryne left snowballed. One that really left a mark was Aldo Costa leaving for Mercedes, along with the magic Bryne passed to him in design work. That is the why the F2008 was the last proper Ferrari, IMHO, in that it still had that magic from the dream team left over in it. After that, we've made mediocre cars, had bad strategy, and a revolving door and blame culture, rather than a culture that sticks together to look for solutions to problems.

So with ourselves, Williams, McLaren, and Renault basically out of the picture, of course, Vettel and Hamilton were able to dominate the sport and rewrite records. The top core of F1 imploded like an old Vegas building in the late 2000's, which opened the door both drivers to be with teams that would have very long eras of dominance that were basically uncontested, as the other drivers never stood a chance against the machines they were in. Not just for a season or two, but the whole era.

And this isn't me saying that Vettel and Hamilton aren't great, or that they didn't win their titles fair and square. They absolutely did. But to pretend they were dealing with serious competitors like Prost, Schumacher, and Senna had to is just objectively not the case.