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

I really disagree on that, but I believe you are open to listening vs. some of our other members.

 

I'm with you. I have personally seen Stewart, Fittipaldi, Lauda, Scheckter, Villeneuve, Prost, etc.. all Win races... I was there to see Villeneuve win at Watkins Glen in 79 - in the pouring rain. I saw Lauda win as well in 75, 77, 82, 84 etc... That does not make me an expert, but a direct witness. Then when those people say Fangio is the greatest, it means something... not somebody's opinion that watched the video and did some numbers. IF you dont want to believe that - fine. just dont engage with those who know more, want to share it, and then poo-poo it .... not nice. For an American, I feel very comfortable with my F-1 knowledge and details I studied this stuff like other did batting averages of Base ball players.... in the end it really does not mean anything.

 

It's impossible to prove folks from different epochs are superior or inferior objectively. You can make generalizations and come to an overall consensus, but unless you have powers to bring folks back from the dead and have a "Field of Dreams" on track moment, trying to say one person is better than another objectively from different eras is folly. It's hard enough when you add the element of different machines - what % of the advantage comes down to the car?

This element is n most sports, not just F1. Of course, the exterior environment variability in some sports is close to nill - take Usain Bolt or Micheal Phelps. However, when you throw in the machine (say Bobsledding) - and try to compare epochs again - it becomes much murkier and far more subjective.

Some folks will say Bill Russel and Wilt Chamberlain are better than Jordan, I disagree, but I can't prove it.

 

OK

 

There will never be a fair comparison between drivers of different eras; it boils down to preference and emotion.

This is why we have a yearly championship, to compare the drivers within a time limit, and determine who was the best each year.

When an individual beats his contemporaries several years running, it surely means something, but that doesn't say he is better than someone from another era.

Fangio never competed against Fittipaldi, Clark against Schumacher, or Stewart against Vettel; hence comparing them is flawed from the start.

When people say Best or GOAT, they mean their prefered driver perhaps, but this is completely meaningless.

 

I agree and the same thing can be said across any sport. It should make some fun conversation, but it will always bring a debate.

The truth is athletes and drivers get better over time. Generally speaking. There are current hockey players that would score 100 goals a season if played in the same time as Gretzky. If those players today are technically better, does it take away from what Gretzky accomplished and hurt his argument of being the GOAT? Not at all.

In auto racing, I'm not taking the same guy to drive all the cars in F1 history and expect success. Even if I'd choose Verstappen to drive a modern F1 car, I wouldn't take him to drive one from the 1950s.

 

I mostly agree. Though in racing, the best driver, or even the best car may not win the race or the championship. Would anyone seriously say Damon Hill was better than Schumacher in 1996?

Unless drivers competed against each other with 100% equal equipment (setup not included) and strategies, the comparisons will always be flawed.

I absolutely agree that many many people label their preferred or the most popular driver as the GOAT. When in a position to defend their claim, their reasons are usually a solid as a thin sheet of ice. It makes it quite entertaining IMO. At the same time, they are the least likely to ever change their mind because they want to defend their preferred driver to the grave. I guess that's human nature.

 

The F1 championship has always been a driver and his car; one cannot disassociate them and there is disparity inbuilt in the sport.

The world champion is the driver who scores the most points during the season. That's a fair and logical system, IMO.

F1 doesn't make allowance for inferior equipment, racing incidents, reliability problems, mechanical failure, penalties, etc ...

Saying that Schumacher was better than Damon Hill in 1996 is once more moving the goal post; if he was best, why didn't he win the championship then?

Only a specs series can offer a level playing field, and even then, up to a point.

 

Sure, different drivers never competed against other great drivers. I mean, obviously.

And you're right about the other point you bring up in that every great champion has to have a great car.

But, the problem with both Vettel and Hamilton was competition. It's not just that they had car advantages, it's that there was next to zero competition during their dominating eras, where other constructors where simply not building competitive cars.

Prost, Senna, and Piquet drove during a time when McLaren, Williams, Ferrari, Lotus, and Brabham were building very competitive cars. It was an objectively tougher era to when both races and championships.

When Prost won his championships did Piquet, Lauda, Senna, Mansell, Hill, etc, have championship level cars again him? Yes they did.

When Vettel won his titles did Hamilton, Alonso, Button, and Rosberg have championship cars? No, they did not.

It is objective fact that Prost's championships were much tougher and therefor, much more valuable in the record books.

Same can be said of Hamilton's titles. Vettel, Riccardo, Verstappen, Alonso, and Leclerc have not had championship level cars for his 6 titles at Mercedes, except for last year, when Verstappen got one, and he beat Hamilton in it.

Hamilton and Vettel are great drivers. Won their titles fair and square. But the records don't tell the whole story.

 

I also think the world championship is a fair and logical system. Excluding manipulation from the powers behind the scenes. I also like that there is a drivers and constructors championship.

Saying Schumacher is better than Damon Hill isn't moving the goal post, it's acknowledging a reality. You said it yourself, driver AND car. Schumacher didn't win the championship because he didn't have the car to do it. Damon Hill is the 1996 F1 champion, but it doesn't make him the best driver that year.

 

Best is a subjective notion, therefore it is not a measure of worth.

The winner of the Drivers' Championship is the one who gathers the more points during a season, regardless of the car he drives.

That's the reality. F1 is not a sport that runs on excuses, but on results.

 

The stats tell me all I need to know. It's a pity they don't satisfy everyone.

 

I hope you are not a Ferrari fan then lol

 

I am a fan of F1 in general, and not any team or driver in particular.

 

Why does anyone keep whipping this dead horse? It's more interesting talking about the future of Haas at this point.

 

Mazepin gets a double amputee as a teammate and a car 10 seconds a lap faster and wins the next 10 championships = best statistics ever = Mazepin must therefore be the best in the world?

 

This.


And now that Nikita M. has left the buildi... ermmm, paddock...

 

Hill wasn't racing Schumacher in 96',he was racing Villeneuve, who was no push over in all fairness to Hill. Doesn't diminish his championship at all that a great driver was not a competitive car enough to take the fight to him.

Another thing that separates Schumacher from Hamilton, is that the former won titles he should've lost against faster William's in 94' and 95', then made incredible runs for titles in much slower cars, where he should've been further behind in 97', 98', and 99' (before he broke his leg), and he had to beat Hill, Hakkinen, Coulthard, Montoya, and Raikkonen in equal or slower cars for titles in 94', 95', 00', and 03, along with another near miss at the championship against Alonso in 06'.

Compare this to Vettel, who should've wrapped up the title with 2 or 3 races to go in 10' and 12', instead of almost getting beaten by Alonso in a ****box. Hamilton threw away a title in 07', was tied against Rosberg going into the finale in 14', was actually beaten by Rosberg in 16', struggled against Vettel until the summer break in 17', and was beaten by Verstappen last year in multiple races where he actually had the faster car.

 

'Agree with the horse whipping to a degree....
But then, why are you here instead of one of the Haas threads (many boards out there with Haas discussion)?.....or start one?? Hmmmmmmmmm???
When losing interest in a thread, it's very easy to unsubscribe from it and not return to it. Fer instance....I am not interested in whether or not Haas' Haas has ( ) a future in F1, so I don't read those threads.

 

Having what to do with the flavor of chili on the moon?
454 was using sarcasm to make the same point.....that with Jacque's championship, that meant he was a better driver than the Schu? (Get it? Sarcasm.)

The rest of his post.....
"Saying Schumacher is better than Damon Hill isn't moving the goal post, it's acknowledging a reality. You said it yourself, driver AND car. Schumacher didn't win the championship because he didn't have the car to do it. Damon Hill is the 1996 F1 champion, but it doesn't make him the best driver that year."

 

Get it but what are you meaning precisely by the word satisfying ?

 

To satisfy = to suffice, to please, to be enough ...

 

As always, Google's one's friend..... https://translate.google.com/

 

Sorry statistics aren’t enough for me.
But this is only my opinion.

 

Agreed. Very important to me but there's other qualifiers......how those stats were achieved........'result of nasty driving or clean?
Personality. Character. And more.....all part of the equations.

And that leaves Jim as my eternal GOAT. 'Just my opinion also.
I don't see anyone surpassing his non-stats plus stats result. Others may be close, but........