Cough, cough, Ahaa coffee nowt wrong with zat, so I'll just settle down and watch the TV...oh my oh my who be this on my screen, I just can't escape Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Gawd! Will someone please, please announce something! Enough of this intercine claptrap. (Pod coffee is an abomination)
Says you, the history come Eng Lit, come foreign language lecturer, on here.. So forgive me your record in this department is not exactly 100%, we've advanced no further than an asthmatic ant with some heavy shopping on announcement's.. So please feel free to give a lecture on the point in going to the theatre, because with all that sex and violence, I get enough of that at home apart from the sex, of course....
Where did I say I was exempt? Nature abhors a vacuum. An absence of hard news sucks in detritus of all sorts. You're just sore over the pod comment.
How am I getting but hurt? I always resent any arguing technique that attributes a position to your opponent in an attempt to make your own arguments look more credible. You repeatedly say that I'm clueless and that I know nothing to try and make my arguments look less credible. The overall point I made was that in Stewart's wdc years he had no team mates that could challenge him for wins. That point holds true; and the fact that you said Francois followed him around and "would not pass" makes it clear he was the designated number 2. He didn't win a single race that season and Stewart won 5. And what you said about cars is quite frankly rubbish. There was definitely such a thing as a good car. No cars were reliable but many were far quicker than the others. There were so many teams running on next to nothing that simply were grid fillers - their shoestring budgets were far more sparse than the bottom runners of today. I could jump on your point stating there were no great cars and say you know nothing but what point would that achieve? Points for you to address: 1. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that a high "win percentage" was much more common in the earlier eras of f1. This is currently the only statistic in your favour given Hamilton has eclipsed Stewart in wins, poles and podiums. The only driver from the current era in the top 10 in win percent is Vettel who is anomalous given be spent many years of his career thus far in a truly dominant car and his team mate wasn't as competitive (yet the statistics would show his team mate was far more competitive then Stewarts ever were). Therefore the only statistic in your favour, win percentage, can easily be explained away as a characteristic of the earlier eras of f1 where less stringent regulations amplified car difference and where, in Stewart's case, he never had a team mate in his wdc years that challenged him for wins. But you're suggesting there wasn't much of a diffference in the car which would make Stewart a far better driver than fittipaldi Peterson hunt and lauda who scored far less points (or maybe now you may want to concede that the car mattered). Graham hill scored no points that season? He must really suck right? Because according to you there was no such thing as a great car. Yeah right. 2. The spreading of misinformation: in the 1973 season for example, there were 15 races. Not ten like you keep trying to tell us. You stated earlier that in modern f1 there are twenty races a season (incorrect) and that previously (when talking about when Stewart won) there were 10 (again incorrect). Such an assertion reveals an unparalleled level of bias because you have to exaggerate to prove your point. 3. Criteria for defining most successful: note I never said Lewis was the best British driver, I said it is too soon to tell given his career is but half way. In terms of success; Hamilton has more wins, poles, podiums and fastest laps (not more than all British drivers but more than most including Stewart). So in terms of success there are more statistics in his favour so the onus really is on you to provide more statistics to back up your claims. I urge you to keep in mind what success is; what is the "act of succeeding"? Because you and most of the others on this thread are seemingly getting confused and equating it with "best". Or at any rate you are bringing up divergent points not relevant to "the act of succeeding". Your first statement (in bold) seems to infer that it's easier to obtain a higher win percentage when there are more races. It is actually the opposite LOL. The less races there are per season gives you a statistically higher chance of having a good win percentage. But you want to criticise my maths? LOL. Lee Wallard entered 3 races and won 1; giving him a higher win percentage than senna. Out of all the statistics here win percentage is one of the least important. Your second statement elucidates your own extreme level of bias and idiocy. Maybe read things out loud before you post.
Both you and rob are misquoting me. I never said he is the best British driver ever. I clearly said it was too soon to tell and simply stated that he is the most successful (which he is if you look at the statistics). I suggest you learn to read. It may help you somewhat.
Toil, the fact you're even arguing with me regarding Hamilton being equal to Jackie Stewart says everything about you. You can't talk your way out of that. There isn't even any more to discuss on this situation. I don't know how else you can talk about this. You know NOTHING about Cevert aside from what you can google. Less than a month ago you stated you had no idea what the thread about him was even about, now you do a quick wikipedia search and you're the expert? 1973-15 Races. What about the other 2 WDC's Sir Jackie got? As for your number 3, this would the point in the conversation where if we were face to face, we would be fist fighting. You're asking me to statistically prove that Jackie Stewart is better than Lewis Hamilton. That alone just goes to show what a f*cking joke you really are. 3-WDC's to Hamilton's 1. Pioneer of the Sport Pioneer in Safety Leader of the drivers union 27% win percentage in an era where on average 2 people died in a season. Put that into perspective now chief. Raced in other series at the same time frame. Including winning the Tasman series. Knighted I'd say statistically, thats a little higher than Hamilton. But you keep magazine racing and reading wikipedia, the rest of us normal folk will understand the difference. I'm still in awe that this is even a conversation. Let me guess, you think LeBron is better than Jordan and Magic too huh?
Nah I leave it so I'll have more room in my case for my vast collection of Hamilton posters to brighten up your place
Oh and you can pack it in sending over your unwanted hurricanes, am gonna have to batten down the hatches here now...
All I see in your post is the constant use of the word BETTER. Whoever claimed that? No need to misinterpret my points to suit yourself. I said Hamilton is statistically the most successful and that is correct. I also clearly stated it is too soon to tell who is better because hamiltons career isn't but half over and only a fool would discount him. yes I didn't know who cervert was. But you're the self proclaimed expert and told me he wouldn't pass Stewart and it doesn't take a rocket science to show he had no challengers for team mates because the stats show he wasn't challenged and the other guys he were up against in his earlier seasons have very poor stats too (like no podiums or race wins not that I want to check again but something like that). It's not hard to look it up on the Internet. And you weren't alive at the time either so all your knowledge obviously came from reading about it or watchingn old race recordings. I get im the poster boy for hate on this forum and it's all too easy to jump on the toil bashing bandwagon. As stated above, I'm talking about on the track. What someone did for safety is irrelevant and so is racing in other series @singoff I will respond to you later I'm running out of time at the present moment. Attacked from all sides it's hard for me to keep up
No idea. All I can say is you all confuse popular opinion with validity of argument. The fact that my views are unpopular on this forum does not make them incorrect. The points I raise are logically sound and I would rather people respond on that basis and refute what I say directly rather than adopting the "everyone thinks you're wrong therefore you must be wrong" type arguments.
