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

Yes, it was provocative. But it's nice to see Russell in front of Hamilton.

 

Yes, I agree. Just wanted to stir Hamilton's fans.

 

You sly little devil you

 

Aie yi-yi mahnn.......did you read my answer A) in post 223? I did not say I would "take spirot's opinion of what he has seen over a collection of data".
I said "I'll take spirot 's eyewitness opinion over one based OFF facts". Again, I was toying with your choice of words....."based OFF facts".....rather than "based ON facts". As in "off facts" meaning not based on facts. Thus the "tongue" smiley.
Never mind I guess. When one has to explain humour, it loses it's impact.

 

The problem with dismissing statistics is that all you are left with are opinions.

I prefer basing my judgement on facts and stats than on opinions.

Many times people defend opinions which are not based on facts, but merely on emotions, preferences, etc ....

 

Absolutely. A race driver's responsibility is to produce the best results possible for the teams and to suit those that paint their names on the cars. It is not to gain favor of the "hearts" of fans.
Thus, what counts are those numbers; stats if I may. All the rest is wonderful (or not, as in so many cases) entertainment for many, but worthless regarding a driver's worth in racing.

 

Sorry. To be completely honest, sometimes I do not understand exactly what you are meaning with your words. Probably just an internet thing. My bad

 

You are absolutely right but with this sport we need to analyze the whole picture if you really want to be fair.
The 4 titles won by Vettel could not ne compared with the Prost achievements for instance.
Again Lewis is a great driver, no doubt about this, but the Mercedes domination is unique in Formula one history.

 

Prost and Vettel raced in different eras, so obviously their achievements cannot be compared.

 

And However, you probably feel (like i do, and most people) Prost was a far better driver, simply because he won a title without having the best car and against 2 other w. champions, one already twice champion and another still in the making. One with a brain, and the other without one, but faster than the other! He also defeated Ayrton in equal cars and, as far as i remenber, no team mate ever beat him on points (except lauda by half a point in 84)! He drove in the same car against Arnoux, Watson, Lauda, keke, Senna, Mansell, and he beat them all.

 

Indeed then statistics aren’t useless but just a basic metric.

 

Statistics were the Gold Standard on F-chat for 15 years when MS had the best statistics. Funny thing, as soon as Lewis went even in titles and pulled way ahead in the tie breaker of wins and poles... statistics lost almost all value at F-chat Just saying the obvious part out loud.

 

Yes, obviously statistics bare some weight, but not as much as some would assume, in my case for example i barely look at them, because they are too much dependent of one important factor (how good is the car you drive!). You just have to do a small exercice. Compare how many points Russel got last year with how many Stroll got. Wich one of them would have been world champion? Now tell me wich one is the best driver!

 

Surpriiiize - surpriiiize......
You're not implying there's some kind of bias here, now are you???........

 

Sure you do. A little work is required, that's all.....

They do do him justice.....
You only mention his 16 wins. No mention that it was in only 66 races. When analyzing "stats", one must consider the percentile of participations. All his numbers (percentage wise) are right up there with the other greats.

Fer instances.....Stirling's 16 wins of 66 races (24.24 %) is close to Michael's 91 of 307 (29.67 %) .
His 19 fastest laps (28.79%) is better than Michael's 77 (25.08 %).
SM's 16 poles (24.24 %) betters MS's 68 (22.15 %).
See what I'm gettin' at? One must extrapolate the data, not just look at the "number of"s.

 

Why should participants in this forum who are trying to have a global vision of this sport have to justify their thinking by certifying not to be racist?

 

I don't know any of them....fact is i don't even know wich game they play, i only ever heard ofTom because he is Giselle Bündchen husband!

 

Who are they ?

 

Having what to do with the price of Tang in Malaysia?

 

I think Golden Steed's post went right over your head. As in you don't get his (her?) point.
(It has nothing to do with racism)

 

To draw a conclusion based on facts as they are at any point in time, data - statistics are indeed needed. I think more to separate anomalies from trends. once you identify the trends then that is when analysis and then historical norms come into play. The trends we are looking at are drivers across the F-1 timeline who have won the WDC, and have the highest number of race wins, points, poles, etc... to establish the greatest of all time.

once the stats are churned up, you need to look at which ones provide the most comparable platform - cant be pointed as it has been all over, the place, same for race wins, - seasons have grown in terms of races, pole positions etc.. but % of wins compared to starts... is pretty neutral... and then you look at the competition, completion rate etc... danger and survival come into it - because it has been a downward slope - with today the sport being 90% safer than it has ever been... and yet there is still fatalities from time to time. It's just my personal conviction that Fangio's stats and achievements are so far ahead that it is unlikely to be passed.

Key Facts:

• Safety was nonexistent - it was luck and pure skill that kept you alive.
• Mechanical reliability was also nonexistent - cars frequently broke down
• Physical ability was different but races were 2- 3x longer and you needed to adapt to the length of time and physical exertion needed similar to today but different core muscle needs....
• Driving Skill- cars were changing vastly from race to race - year to year - you had to adapt, and master the techniques all the time - today not really.
• Tracks - tracks were usually actual roads, with camber, ruts, etc... and at times cars still performed at or above 100MPH quite a bit - Spa routinely saw 150MPH for decades with no barriers etc...
• Competition - was just as strong as today - even more so, in almost every race from 1950 to 1965 there were 4-6 drivers with a chance of winning, a race. every race. mechanical break down was the usual issue... that limited competition.
• Drivers raced all forms of cars - so the danger and survivability was even greater- with Sports cars of the day routinely faster than F-1 cars.
• Fangio more than any other driver of the era - managed to control and beat all the above with routine.

In my opinion that is why he is the greatest of all time.

 

'Can't argue that.
As I stated earlier/elsewhere, I'm totally in agreement with the reliability factor.....hell, it's now mandated for Pete'ssake (cost saving my arse).
No more build and run 'em to the max (often beyond...). Gotta' keep more runnin' for the sponsors and show doncha' know.
Heaven forbid we see the best man can offer........

 

So what’s his point ?
Just curious.

 

Who's on first?