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

And here is the clincher - Fangio was much older than many of his contemporaries only starting Racing in his 30's.... being almost 50 before he stopped.

 

My father was a pro on the PGA tour back when prize money barely covered travel cost in a used car. Times have changed my Dad commemnts often that the level of youth, talent and athleticism you see in today’s touring pro would have been unimaginable back in the 1950’s and 1960’s. All pro sports have become so much more competitive over the decades.

 

Drive a 1970s MG at 70mph and you will feel your life flash before your eyes and an adrenaline rush way more than a modern Ferrari at 150mph I get it.

Lewis is the best by total wins over his career in F1 and he is the best when we level the playing field and look at wins vs race starts. Fangio may be the bravest and luckiest but that’s like saying modern fighter jet pilots are wimps compared to World War 1 pilots.

 

"Lewis is the best...level the playing field and look at race starts." Uh, I think that would be Fangio:

Highest win % of race entries Juan Manuel Fangio 46,15% 24 wins of 52 entries

 

While I agree with a lot of what you say, some things are not quite true.

Most races were around 3 hours long, some were closer to 2 hours. Much longer than today's races (around 2x longer was quite common), but not close to 3x longer. But still 3 hrs in a car with a lap belt and proper gear changes, that's some endurance alright.

Cars changing vastly from race to race? The cars of the 50s didn't have nearly the development they do today. The fundamentals of the cars stayed the same year to year through the early to mid 50s. When the rear engine cars showed up, wings, and fatter tires, things really started to change. But if you can tell me how a 1954 Maserati 250F differs drastically from a 1957 Maserati 250F, I'd like to know. That's 3 years apart, let alone race to race.

Competition as strong or stronger than today. This is 100% false. I've already talked about it, but I'll do it again. The difference in speed just between 1st and 5th was on average around 5 seconds in qualifying. Of course the laps were longer, some being around 10 minutes (Nurburgring), but it still comes out to 2-3%. 1956 it was an average of 2.7%. Which on a typical 90 second lap seen today, that's about 2.5 seconds. That's the so called competitive top 5. 1st to last, now we see 10, 20, 30, 60+ seconds behind. The same few drivers won every race, a lot of that being determined by reliability, as you touched on. In 1952 Ascari won every single F1 race he drove in, with the exception of the Indy 500 which I am not including in these figures. The history books will show wins for drivers when they shared the car. So if Fangio broke down, he could then jump in one of his teammates cars, win the race, and they both get credit for a win in the books. Lets not forget that only a handful of people actually drove all the races in a season, Fangio always being one of them. In 1950 just 4 guys drove all the Euro races. In 1957 when F1 was getting more established. Just 2! In the 1958 Argentina GP, only 10 drivers competed in the race.

Side note for Fangio. He was only out qualified by a teammate 6 times in 51 road course races. 88.2% of the time he was the fastest on his team, which usually consisted of several drivers. That's impressive. Of course the books show him competing in 52 races, but that includes the 1958 Indy 500 where he didn't qualify because he was too slow.

 

This statement of yours alone shows why I have such little interest into what you think or say:

"But still 3 hrs in a car with a lap belt and proper gear changes, that's some endurance alright."

F-1 drivers did not use any belts until the very late 60's... come on if you are going to get all analytic ... at least get basic details correct. I think belts became mandatory in 1972. I'm not really aware of any race cars - F1 or sports cars that had belts as standard in the 50's or even early 60's. yes, at that point they would have been lap belts.

as for the 250 F - you mean the difference in drum brakes sizes, tube strength, V-6, V-12, fared in or open-wheel, injected or carbs? Do you mean differences like that? not to mention how the cars were set up per race, deDion, leaf spring, 4 speed or 5-speed ratios.... tire compounds or makes - wire wheels vs. steel,

Its hard to have a serious conversation when with one, when all you have is stats, and lack a fundamental understanding of racing, car design and the art of F1. As I have said in the past, its not all about the stats. also - timing in the 50's was less about 10ths than seconds or even minutes.
Just because its not on Video does not mean it did not happen. I'd encourage you to read, and have less reliance on your own direct experience - as this is clearly something outside your expertise and experience level.

 

Totally agree. Try a TAG kart at 70MPH for some real thrills!

 

Really? You couldn't figure it out with my prodding?

The answer is in reading the context of the post.
First, read Mark's quote. Then, Steed's response. Look at the pics.
Now I'll explain.

I'm t'inkin' Steed wuz challenging the value of stats (you know, responding to Mark). They both have all those rings on their fingers (same number of them), but still, only one gets the nod. There's more to deciding who's the GOAT then just numbers. There's still "feelings" of individuals to give the nod.
Not everybody jumps on racism as the cause of different opinions.

Google, if nothing else, is your friend. American football players.

 

I thought this was a F1 forum.

Are we supposed to know all the ball game players too ?

Like you say on your side of the pond: "if it doesn't have an engine, it ain't sh1te !!"

 

You've had a piss poor attitude ever since I didn't place your dad's favorite driver at the top of the list. I've been respectful and polite to you, instead you continue to be a snot, so I'll treat you the same.

Now that you mention it, I do recall that supposedly some drivers preferred to get thrown from the car in the case of an accident. I don't have a list of what drivers chose to wear belts before they became mandatory in 1972. Do you? Does this have any relevance to you saying the races were 3x longer than they are now?

You made the claim that a driver has to adapt to the massively changing car every race, and then master this new technique. There weren't switching between the Inline 6 (yes inline 6, shouldn't you know this isn't a V6?) and the V12 race to race, or the gear box between 4 or 5 speeds. I didn't know the car had a leaf spring, must be a transverse leaf spring in the rear just like Corvettes. I don't think that changed on the 250F, let alone race to race. The car evolved each year, which has happened in F1 with every big team since 1950. Changing to the V12 probably required some adapting as the balance and power of the car certainly changed. Oddly the supposedly much more powerful V12 wasn't really any faster than the Straight 6. 4 speed vs 5 speed, gear spacing is a little different, but doesn't change how those cars were driven in general. Tire compounds and wire wheel vs steel? Come on. I know you won't say a modern driver is more talented because they use 3 different compounds during a weekend. In the 50s, the cars pretty much all had the same design year to year, race to race. Front engine, skinny tires, "high" center of gravity, drum brakes. You talk like there was a revolutionary change race to race, like the drivers were jumping from a Camry to a Porsche and needed to relearn how to drive every time. That's just not true. You could say that Fangio had the talent to jump to any different car, because he would also jump to the best car every year, and still be able to be faster than his teammates. That's a fact.

Should I trust the opinion of the supposed expert F1 historian like yourself? You weren't there either. But you read a book, you love to name drop famous people you been around, got to go to races, and you believed what people told you. You are so suck in your ways you aren't even open to other people forming their own opinion.

You can believe whatever you want, it's your freedom to do so, I've said that before. But stating things as facts when they are clearly wrong and then having the gal to smear someone else's credibility because it doesn't align with your opinion or feelings? Must be nice living so high above the rest. What's funny to me is your opinion is based off of other people's opinions. None of your beliefs on the subject seem to stem from your own thoughts. My dad told me, Ex Racer told me, I read in this book where someone said. I'm stating facts and figures that I didn't come up with. They are available to anyone that wants to learn. How deep someone wants to dig into those facts and figures is up to them, but the deeper one digs the better it is.

 

It is indeed very nice up here where I sit. It is also equally easy to be very comfortable in my knowledge of F-1. My Opinions are based on my own thoughts. I was young and know it all too once. but after a while, you realize you don't know better. I thought the Senna's of the world were gods too until I really started to think it all through. I was lucky to know a lot of very well-known - and experienced people - who did the driving, who was there at the races... and not someone who looks at statistics and tries to come up with an idea on who is the best.

Maserati 250F was all-conquering in its day. but only to the best drivers. Fangio is the guy. So I guess you think that 50's F-1 cars just showed up and were never worked on over the race weekend? Do you think they were always the same in every race? nothing ever changed? fuel mixes were always perfect? Naïve is the best I can say about your thoughts.

So here is what we're going to do. You go on living your life, I'll go on in mine. if we cross paths here so be it. Sorry to offend, but I will say I firmly believe you are 100% wrong. data is not right or wrong- it's just data.

 

Oh, and one more thing. My Father to me was a great guy. He had his faults as we all do, but the one thing he was almost always right about was F1. He could see the races unfold, whether in person or on tv, knew what was happening and could predict who was going to be a star driver or not. Every time. This is from experience. On top of that, it's because of him that I have followed F-1 all my life and have such a passion for it.

 

You thought correctly; and of course not. To each his own.

I thought it was a great way to make his point (Tho' comparing different position players' stats is not the same as drivers in the same venue's stats.).

(And for those that don't know, quarterbacks usually get the glory in American football)

 

If you were worse as a kid, I can only image how arrogant you must have been.

Once again you say you talked to people, and you heard things from other people. How is this forming your own opinion? In all this time you have not given one credible example of these amazing stories you have about why Fangio is the greatest. Of course these stories would be of an opinion that was interpreted and retold by you. You claim that facts can be manipulated, but don't want to concede that story telling can be manipulated an infinite amount worse?

Even though I asked you point blank why you thought Fangio was the greatest, and you gave a so so response, but then gave a list of reasons later.

- Lack of safety that all the drives were subject to, not just Fangio.
- Cars broke down frequently. How is that a criteria for being the greatest when 60% of the competition has car issues. Fangio had mechanical failures as well. There seasons he suffered more than his teammates. What does this prove?
- All drivers in the 50s drove on racing roads. A testament to them all, not just one.
- Competition - you couldn't be any more wrong, and I proved it. You even said it yourself, timing in the 50s wasn't about tenths, it was about seconds or minutes. In what dimension is it more competitive to be minutes off the pace than tenths?
- Drivers drove other cars. Our discussion was about greatest F1 driver, so their other successes should be irrelevant. In any case, even drivers today still drive other forms of cars. There aren't too many drivers that don't have resume of success in other forms of racing.
- Fangio did it better than other drivers in his era. Yup, I agree. You fail to hear that because I said he isn't the GOAT in my opinion.

You can base your reasons on whatever you want, but that list is weak to be used across the entire span of F1 history.

Did I say anything about cars not being setup differently as per different tracks? Did I make any comment at all that cars didn't change or evolve? I'm pretty sure you can quote me on saying that the cars did evolve. I can quote you. "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." You said the cars changed vastly from race to race, that's non sense. Drives had to adapt and master new techniques because of these vast changes race to race. Nonsense. Cars don't change and develop today? Nonsense. Drivers don't "adapt" to cars or setup changes, or tire compounds as per one of your examples today? Nonsense. You do know that 2022 cars are different than the 2021 cars right? But nice try at steering the topic away from how you are wrong to some false accusations about me, and things I didn't say.

Do not forget that it was you that you started your hissy fit by you asking why I didn't have Fangio at or near the top of the greatest list. You wanted to make claims about me based on nothing and then insult my intelligence. Well I will take that challenge against you any day. But please bring something to the table worth a debate. Simply saying "I've read books, some guy I know thinks so, the TV said so, or my dad said so" is a hollow argument because it can't be verified much less proved. You can't win that argument. But I'll continue to bring facts the table which are going to be correct based on the records which are available to everyone and can be verified by anyone. So if my argument is based off of things that are correct and can be proved, and yours is based off of other peoples opinions and can't be proved. I guess that makes me 100% right and you 100% wrong? Sounds kind of stupid when someone says that doesn't it?

You should really be more open minded to learning and accepting others have ways to form their own opinion. To this day I am still not trying to change your mind about Fangio. I'm more than willing to hear anyone's reason to change my mind. You have this supposed great wealth of F1 knowledge, and even though I now have a low opinion of your character, I will still gladly learn something from you and I am comfortable to even tell you if you are right and I am wrong. Instead you chose to ignore things that prove you wrong or don't fall inline with your narrative and instead go towards redirect and insults.

 

Ev-er-eee one......the season starts soon.......

 

I mean, could that have to do more with Haley being a linebacker versus a quarterback?

I mean Thurston, Gregg, and Adderly all have SIX - I bet folks here will say WHO?!?

Just because Robert Horry has more rings than Jordan, that doesn't even make him close to the GOAT.

 

I mean that's just the modern NFL. I'm betting the farm on Trey Lance. I mean, is it unfair that Mahomes gets an outsize exposure for the Chiefs? I don't think so. He's great.

 

You mean it’s not some other reason why Jordan is considered the GOAT even though Tom Heinsohn got 10 rings 30 years before him?!?

 

Bill Russell???

 

Exactly! I only mention Heinshon since melanin was implied to be involved in determining the GOAT.

 

Huh? What in bloody 'ell are you babbling about??? Image Unavailable, Please Login
I 'aven't a clue aboot water polo......

 

Have a good life.

 

@SS454

Come now, Gentlemen. The truth is we can never definitively prove one over the other.

It's exceedingly hard to compare folks from different epochs. Add to the mix the divergent cars, and it's next to impossible.

 

While what you say it's true Paul, one should never underestimate the experience of someone who has watched f.1 for so many years. While reading about it is fine, nothing can substitute the experience of watching and reading it at the time races unfolded. I see many younger folks who think because they read and saw about f.1 they know it all, and they don't , not even close. This is one of most Hamilton fans problems (not all of them), most only have started to folow f.1 from 2007 or therabouts, and they believe they can discuss on equal footing with someone who saw Stewart, Clark, Lauda, Gilles, Senna, etc, etc. They can't. I have flashes of Lauda driving a Ferrari at Monaco, i was 3 years old, and i remenber Ronnie's accident at Monza, i was 4, Jody and Gilles victory at Monza , at 5, and from then on i remenber more and more, and we have folks here that go well before that! The more you have seen, the more you're able to compare drivers, because the perception you have at the mime is very diferent from the one you'll have years later.

 

Absolutely true.
Some youngest members here believe they know everything about F1.
In fact their knowledge is based on the last 10 years at best.
Recently I saw the Schumacher documentary on Netflix for the first time and I was amazed by the fact I forgot so many things about his career !
A good wake up call!