Hamilton deserves more respect

My opinion is that Hamilton had his time, and should retire now before his reputation goes downhill.
His fate seems to be linked to Mercedes, and they aren't winning anymore.
But what surprises me most is that Toto Wolff could be signing him for another years, when he should be looking for a replacement.

 

Game, set and match

 

Damon Hill wasn't outstanding, that's for sure, but underrated, IMO.
Not being a "natural", he worked hard to get there, but managed it in the end.
True the Williams was the best car then, and Damon knew the ins and outs of that car for having tested it for years.
I think that Frank Williams and Patrick Head were very silly to sack Damon Hill the year he was WDC, to replace him with Hans-Harald Frentzen who proved to be way inferior, and wasn't worth a bean. It was very callous on their part, and that signaled the decline of Williams, BTW. Damon had very strong support among some of Williams staff who worked closely with him. Newey was against this departure and said he left in disgust, and that says something!

 

who would they replace Hamilton with? Unless it's Leclerc. Mick Schumacher is a PR boy and that's it. Toto's praises about Nyck De Vries turned out to be a bust, that guy won't survive in F1. Alex Albon is under a RBR contract still. Do they try to scoop Perez? Can they get Ocon?

 

When you talk about worst F1 champs, Damon Hill always comes to the top of my list. He was roughly 1 second off the pace of Senna before he passed away. He lost to JV, who is another horrible champ. HHF may not be a top driver, but he was in the championship hunt in 1999 with a Jordan! None of said drivers are among the worst drivers all time, but average might be the right word.

 

Perhaps Toto Wolff should think about taking one of F2 graduates ? Drugovich comes to mind, but there could be others.

It should not be forgotten that most (if not all) F1 drivers came from F2, which is supposed to be the pool of new talents.

 

F2 driver going to the Mercedes big boy team? I know of only 1 driver that gets that gift. I don't think there is anyone in the pipeline that is going to be better than Lewis. So from Mercedes' point of view, they should sign him to a short contract. Assuming Leclerc isn't available.

 

One can easily make the argument that Hamilton is an entitled driver ... whether he is "ahead" or "alongside", he tends to approach a corner as if he's the only driver on the track.

An entitled driver is certainly a dangerous driver ... which arguably makes for a bad driver. YES, you can be "fast" and "dangerous/bad" at the same time.

 

If you compare D.Hill with Senna, you are talking about only 3 races then.
Is it fair to compare a relatively newcomer against a 3-time WDC ? I think not.
Hill pulled the Williams team after Senna died, and almost won the title against Schumacher! He couldn't be that bad !
Strange that you value HHF for being in the championship hunt, but not Hill for doing the same and succeeding !!
I think public opinion and the pundits were very unfair about Damon Hill at the time, and the mud sticks ...

I don't know why Jacques Villeneuve was "another horrible champ". What can a driver do to better a WDC ? Walk on the moon ...

 

HAM is one of the fairest drivers I've seen, and I've seen quite a few.

 

Methinks you need to see quite a few more.

When Hamilton is ahead, he's notorious for failing to leave room, on track, for an alongside driver ... squeezing the apex as if he's the only driver on track.
When Hamilton is alongside, he's notorious for failing to realize that the driver ahead only needs to leave one car's width at apex.

In short ... Hamilton drives as if he's "entitled" to any line he chooses around a turn, other drivers be damned.

... maybe we have different definitions of "fair".

 

I don't value HHF very high either. Had he won the title in 1999 while driving a Jordan, that would be hugely impressive and a much bigger accomplishment than Hill or JV winning in the incredible William-Renault cars. As it was said, average is a pretty good word for these guys.

It is no secret that the car is 90% of the time more important than the driver. Alonso could dominate if he had the best car, but can barely finish 18th in a Minardi (2001). So an average driver can absolutely win races and a championship if their car is good enough and their teammate is just as average or worse.

I've said it multiple times now, I do not think Hill or JV are necessarily bad drivers. There have been much worse than them. They are just among the worst that have won a championship. Hill had 1 race in an Arrows that was impressive, JV wasn't impressive without his dominant car. The proper good drivers always seem to stand out even in crap cars.

 

Based on what? I don't disagree that he LH was/is very very fast. But ever... not sure about that.

Rosberg isn't exactly known for being one of the fastest, yet he was often faster than Hamilton.
Bottas wasn't too far off Hamilton, and he can barely get the better of Zhou.
Button certainly was never that fast. Hamilton consistently was faster, but only by a couple of tenths.

I think one of Hamilton's biggest strengths is his abilities to put it all together when it really matters in qualifying. He may look only so so through a weekend, but in Q3 he typically puts in his best laps. They may not always be outrageously fast, but his teammates have to be on it to beat him, because 9 out of 10 times, Lewis is putting his best lap when it counts.

 

You will have to list here all the WDCs who won their titles on "crap cars" to give any credibility to your opinions.
Also, I cannot see how a driver who wins a title can be a "horrible champ", or "the worst that have won a championship". Beats me ...
I think you have a twisted way of looking at F1.

 

You didn't read Patrick Dixon's post properly, did you ?
Patrick Dixon wrote, and I quote: "HAM is one of the fairest drivers I've seen, and I've seen quite a few."

He said FAIREST, not FASTER, regarding track behaviour.
But you couldn't miss the excuse for another diatribe, could you?

 

You're right. I read FASTEST. Honest mistakes. Not sure why you felt the need to insult me over it.

 

In the list of all the F1 champions, someone has to be at the bottom as the worst champion. Just because you win the championship does not automatically make you a great driver. Especially in F1 where you need a good car to at least compete for a championship. When I rank Damon Hill and/or JV against other champions like Schumacher, Senna, Alonso, and even Hamilton... they are horrible in comparison. If it wasn't for the amazing car they had, they would never have a hope of being champions. There are champions out there that didn't have the best car (MSC 1994), there are drivers that came close in a car that never should have been in the mix (Alonso 2012). If you believe Damon Hill and/or JV is as good of a champion as Schumacher, Senna, Alonso, or Hamilton, then that's your opinion. I don't think you will find too many that agree with you.

 

Funny enough, I misread it the same way. Maybe it's because...

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Come on now mate….. Really??

 

He's been saying that since end of last year.

If a contract was to be signed at all I'd seriously have expected it for Silverstone. Sure, 2 more days left to go here but surely they'd like to maximize publicity on that one.

Only during summerstop perhaps...

 

Welcome back Bas!

 

I insulted you ? When ?

 

Every season, there are elements that car determine who becomes WDC, and the conditions changes all the time.
So it's absolutely pointless to rank WDCs when then competed in different eras, different formulas, different cars, on different circuits, etc ...
I driver cannot do better than win a WDC in the year he is racing, using all that is available to him.
A WDC in 2025 won't be competing against the 1985 WDC, so what's the point comparing them? It's absolutely ridicule.
It's maybe easier for some to get to the crown than for some, because of a better car, or opportunities some year, but no more than that.

Maybe Schumacher didn't have the best car in 1994, BUT he benefited from favourable opportunities like the death of main rival Senna, some undetected technical trickeries from his team, and a crash at the last race that settled the outcome of the championship.
Nevertheless, he was 1994 WDC, and I am fine with that. I don't say he was horrible that year.

 

I think maybe you need new glasses?

 

Damon was a dwarf who raced in a time of Giants.