Is Hamilton one of the GOAT F1 drivers?

Hill gets less credit than he deserves. He was racing Prost, Senna and Schumacher, three of the greats, and he did fairly well. We can't say those three were absolutely great and also say that the team-mate who beat one of them a few times was an also-ran. Or that his Hungary almost-win in 1997 was lesser than a similar performance by someone else.

Not saying Hill is among the GOAT drivers but he was a rather good one at a time where there seemed to be a bit more competition.

Either way, the way the regulations work these days... The discussion of GOAT becomes pointless, at least in regards to F1.

 

Damon Hill was a very good tester, and that's what promoted him through the ranks; already in the lower categories, he kept setting his car better than many, and qualified at the front.
I will agree that he wasn't so combative in close proximity with other competitors, but he was using his abilities.
Even a "superior" car, as the Williams was then, needed to de dialled for every race, etc...
The idea that you can just sit in a car qualify it on the front row and win without tuning it first is rather amusing ... Some drivers are better at that than others.

I see lots of similarities between Damon Hill and Nico Rosberg in that respect. Fast and composed, but lacking aggression when it matters.

Damon Hill deserved his title, IMO, but no, he wasn't a great driver, neither was his father Graham.

 

My son was for a short while assistant to Keith Ballisat, the motorsport director of SHELL UK in the 80s, and the man who decided sponsorship for the oil company.

Apart from deciding the budget for McLaren, etc... at the time, Ballisat also supported young drivers in Formula Ford, F3, F2, touring cars, etc...during their ascent through ther ranks.

Ballisat (an ex-driver himself) believed that anyone could improve as long as he had a good car, practised enough, received good coaching, etc... It was just a matter of money to spend to give an individual time to progress.

When he was scouting driving schools and amateur races in UK and abroad, to decide the following year SHELL sponsorship recipients, he made sure to select marketable drivers, almost regardless of lap time. He listened to people, took names, and observed individuals.

Then, the selection was run like a pageantry. The candidates were invited in London; they had to parade like in a fashion show, present themselves, be articulate (not bad accent pleaaaase !!), have their photos taken, etc... Their social skills were tested; they were interviewed and observed eating, drinking and holding conversation with their peers and company staff. With all these information, Ballisat went on to decide in his office who to select for his stable.

I am sure many were eliminated because of their physics, facial hair, provincial accent, shyness, lack of civility, background, etc... Ballisat's theory was that who ever received SHELL sponsorship represented the company, and had to be the very best. Presentation was a must, in his book.

This, just to give an insight about sponsorship, how it is sometimes decided.

 

I agree that Hill is underrated. His career went out with a whimper (even retiring a perfectly good running car in his last race) but he was a good driver.

 

+1

A friend of mine used to kart as a youngster (I believe under 12) together with Button and they where basically trading positions constantly. Button managed to get sponsorship, my friend did not...My friend ended up with a normal job, and got his kicks by drifting his car at night time. I used to have a video of him somewhere drifting his old corolla at absolutely mental speeds on the street. There where a couple of guys there that could pedal a car somewhat decent but what he could do was frankly, insane. He got a gig driving drift cars occasionally put pretty much only expenses paid, he didn't make money of it.

He's definitely not bitter about it, though.

 

I think Hill got a lot more then he deserved.....he was not even a top 5 driver when he won the title..barely a top 10.

 

It sucks, but it happens in many professions...if you have the right connections it's a lot easier to go far...talent alone will give you nothing

 

I don't agree at all with your statement.

Damon Hill was at the right place at the right time and carried his responsibility very well.

It's refreshing when the title goes to an underdog.

His father was the same; less talented than Jim Clark, but always there to benefit from his rival's misfortune.

 

Of course he was at the right place at the right time..no question about it...but he wouldn't be there if he wasn't british...and there were far better drivers then him at the time, but they simply had not the equipment to fight him, otherwise he would never got near the title...

 

Graham Hill was less talented than Jim Clark - who wasn't - but he was also the glue that held Lotus together in the dark days of early 1968. Jimmy & Mike Spence were killed in Lotuses within 3 weeks. Undeterred, Graham went on to win the F-1 title for Lotus that same year, & he didn't beat a bunch of wankers, either: Jackie Stewart, Jack Brabham, Denis Hulme, John Surtees (all WDC winners!) plus Jackie Ickx, Dan Gurney, Bruce McLaren, etc.
Graham had talent and a truck load of gritty determination.

 

All professional sports are really just a business behind the curtain. The fans fuel it all by supporting what ever is being marketed to them, through their passion. (football, racing, whatever) They are merely disguised as sports so that the fans can relate and are passionately involved. Racing is different than stick and ball sports in that it does not necessarily take a gifted talent to excel at or be successful. With enough practice and experience, a lot of drivers can be competitive in equal machinery. If certainly helps to be naturally gifted, but in racing, without the financial backing you'll never have the chance to display or hone your talent.

Money equals seat time. It can come from your family, having a marketable name or angle (gender, nationality, race) or just from being in the right place at the proper moment in time. For every driver who makes it, their are 10 other deserving ones who don't. Natural talent just does not get the chance to rise to the top like the stick and ball sports. That being said, I think it takes a bit of time to be considered a part of the GOAT. You need some time for history to pass final judgment.

To me, numbers alone don't qualify you for that distinction. The man behind the driver makes a difference. How you win and how you lose are also important because a GOAT encompasses more than how many records or Championships you own. I think that's where some drivers today fall short and need to understand. Quality plus quantity. I suppose it will eventually come with time and maturity.

 

Are you telling us that Williams only recruit British drivers?

What about Alan Jones, Clay Regazzoni, Nelson Piquet, Zanardi, Alain Prost. Ralph Schumacher, Juan Pablo Montoya, Mark Webber, Nico Rosberg, Maldonado, Felipe Massa, Bottas, etc...
I am sure there are more ...

Damon Hill was recruited by Williams on his reputation as a tester first, and proved so good that he was promoted to number 2 to Senna, who unfortunately died. Becoming team leader, Hill proved his worth and rewarded Williams' trust with a title.

Just too bad if the best drivers don't always get the best cars!!
We could argue that until the cows come home ...
That doesn't mean that Hill was less deserving than them.
Damon was a true gentleman too, it must be said.

 

+1000

You are absolutely right.

"Money equals seat time", and "Practice makes perfect" are the clues to become a top driver.

A youngster without financial worries and good coaching WILL become a top driver, maybe one of the best.

I share your views about the GOAT too.

 

No William, that's not what i meant, but if they can, yes, they will....Coulthard was nowhere near Pedro lamy or Panis in f.3000, Lamy was by far the best driver that year (even if eventualy Olivier got the title...Pedro was driving an older car..and there were many other funny things)...so, You had in order of talent Lamy, Panis, Coulthard....Lamy got a place with the decrepit Lotus, Panis, being a French secured his place in a Ligier, and Coulthard who couldn't keep up with them got a place with Williams!! Any more questions?

 

There are many considerations taken into account when choosing a driver.

I really don't think Williams would give preference to a British; they have proven otherwise in the past and opened their doors to plenty of foreigners.

It's not always about picking the guy you fancy because he is faster in a lower category. There are discussions taking place, often conducted with the drivers' agent about the length of the contract, and its many clauses, plus wage expectations, etc... Also, as I mentioned, Williams sponsors may have a say in this, etc...

 

I totally agree. A GOAT to me is much more than their record. To be a GOAT, an athlete must elevate their sport to another level. Simply being the most competent now at what everyone else did before you does not a GOAT make.

Rossi is a GOAT. Michael Phelps is a GOAT. They've brought hundreds of thousands of fans to their sports by virtue of their incredible talent.

 

+1

 

Seems like I'm a bit late to the party but Hamilton is definitely one of the greatest. Though posting this topic in fchat will not get you a representative result. There are many people here that hate Hamilton so much who will say anything to detract from his successes. Everyone laughed at me when I said he would end up a GOAT but he's proving them wrong and for some it's a bitter pill to swallow.

It is hard to say exactly where Hamilton ranks but definitely in the top 5 GOATS (currently at the lower end of the top 5 but career in progress). It all depends on the era one is driving in as well. Senna out qualified Prost when they were team mates something like 26-4 but was out scored by Prost in both their seasons together. In today's aero dominated era, track position is everything and Prost would have not scored anything close to the amount of points senna did. He simply would not have found a way past. Interestingly, senna lost an average of 1.2 places per race so not a top racer or complete driver but still GOAT due to his unprecedented speed. Crazy to think Prost would have won 83 84 85 86 88 89 93 under today's point system or even if wins were 10 pts instead of 9.

The most common argument against hamiltons greatness is that he's in the fastest car and all he has to do is beat rosberg. This specious argument can quite easily be dismissed. The records Schumacher amassed (wins, poles and titles all included) were even easier to obtain than Hamiltons and he is widely regarded as one of the best of all time. If this proposition is true, and my post will demonstrate that it is, then one who dismisses hamiltons success must do the same with Schumachers.

Schumacher almost never had a top rate team mate. He partnered Nelson piquet for 5 races in his first season and was out scored by piquet. To be fair Schumacher had more retirements, but the performances were quite even. And piquet was almost 40 years old and in his last season in f1 - well past his prime. Other than that, Schumacher never had a good team mate in his 'first career', only journeymen that he could easily dominate. He engineered his own career to ensure he always had a designated number two.

Further to this, all seven of his titles were won against one of the most talent depleted grids in f1 history. Alain Prost retired at the end of 1993. Senna died early in 1994 whilst piloting a dominant Williams. This made it possible for Schumacher to win 2 titles in a less dominant car as his only opposition was Damon hill who is widely regarded as one of the least talented WDCs of all time. The Williams was dominant for 4 years 94-97 and would have made Senna a 7 time champion, Schumacher still on zero. Schumacher piloted the Benetton to titles but so could any of the other GOATS with Damon hill as the opposition.

Enter in the Ferrari years. The grid was again very talent depleted. Hakkinen was the only driver on the grid, aside from Schumacher, who would rank in anyone's top 20. Even then Schumacher lost two titles to mika. Last race of the 1998 season, mika is 4 pts ahead in the championship. Schumacher is on pole but he chokes under pressure and stalls his car on the grid and has to go start from last. Kills his own championship chances - mika takes the title. People laugh at rookie Hamilton for beaching his car in the gravel trap in China 07 but even a 7 year veteran can choke.

Roll in the new millennium. Schumacher wins 5 consecutive titles in the best car, with a below average team mate who must subjugate his own will to that of Schumachers. Austria 2002 is the epitome of that; barrichello is winning and doesn't want to let Schumacher by but is told over radio they will reconsider his contract (fire him) unless he moves over. Throughout those 5 years barrichello solely exists to help Michael win titles. His strategy during races is not optimised for his own result but he is employed to act as the rear gunner to Schumacher.

Schumacher then comes out of retirement and enters f1 in an average car. His team mate rosberg is far quicker than what he is used to and he's no longer definitive number 1. Schumacher is comprehensively beaten by rosberg. Out qualified 41-17, and out scored 324 - 197 pts. People say that is because he was old but then fangio wiped the field and he was considerably older than Schumacher. But to be fair, age does make a difference and f1 drivers are much more professional than they used to be. But there are multi le man winners at 40. Schumacher would have lost pace for sure but in his prime I highly doubt he would do any better than Hamilton has against rosberg.

Now contrast Schumachers career with Hamiltons; partnered with alonso as a rookie. Then later 3 consecutive seasons against a fellow WDC at McLaren. He beat both alonso and jenson when they were defending champions so right at the peak of their talents. Yes 2 seasons with a journeyman team mate (kovaleinen) but that's compared to like 15 for Schumacher. Over 6 years at McLaren Hamilton scored 26 poles vs 6 combined for team mates, a great record to have when 4 years were against WDCs. Then many years with rosberg who is very quick, just lacks the polished race craft and ruthlessness to be WDC. After Stirling moss he's definitely the best driver to have never won a WDC. Now if you look at the current grid; alonso Vettel Hamilton button and up and comers Ricciardo and verstappen. That is the most talent on the grid since the early 1990s
When did F1 last have a grid this good? · F1 Fanatic).
Schumachers reign began when one goat died/the other left the sport (senna and Prost) and it ended when alonso came along and beat him in a car that was arguably slower than his Ferrari (in 2006 at least).

In summary, Schumacher had a dominant car for most of his career, Raced against slow team mates and his success came against one of the least talented grids in f1. He always was given the best equipment and always had team orders on his side. Hamilton had a dominant car, but he never benefited from team orders, often had top class team mates and a talented grid to contend with.

So am I actually trying to say Schumachers achievements are worthless? Of course not. The argument was merely raised to elucidate the idiocy of claims that hamiltons achievements are meaningless. It is clear that Schumacher was a top driver in a top car and so is Hamilton.


No one can deny that Hamilton is blisteringly quick. Probably second only to senna over a single lap in the history of f1. Imo he has more natural talent than Schumacher and I doubt Schumacher would do as well in an era with limited testing like we have now. Give him as many seasons in a championship winning car as Schumacher and his pole tally will be in the 80s. He's proving that right now by all the records he is encroaching on. Rosberg is also very quick over a single lap and I remember an interview with Schumacher who said now everyone knows just how quick rosberg is (in reference to being comprehensively beaten by him). Rosberg is lacking in other areas though.

I would agree that in the years prior to 2014 Hamilton was not always consistent. Multiple crashes sometimes his fault but sometimes not (2011 particularly). A lot of reliability issues beyond his control too. A bit hot headed though. He did not have that metronomic consistency of a Schumacher Prost or alonso. He had the raw talent but not the calculated consistency. Hamilton has matured greatly since then and is both blisteringly quick and consistent. Take any of the GOAT drivers in their prime and chuck them next to Hamilton in today's merc and it would be one hell of a fight. Put Schumacher next to a 2011 Hamilton and schuey would have the measure of him. Next to the more mature Hamilton, I think Hamilton would out qualify him and it would be bloody close over the season but I think Hamilton would come out on top given how important track position is in modern f1.

Comparisons are always tough to make. Schumacher and alonso both had massa as a common team mate. Schumacher out scored massa only 121-80 whereas alonso pulverised him 1029-496. Do we say alonso is better than Schumacher? Some might. But of course comparisons are only half the story and form can dip and surge over a career. Post accident massa may have been worse - not according to massa himself though.

No one wins a championship with a bad car. The best car usually wins. The question becomes though, when we see a driver dominating; is this an average driver in a good car? Or a top driver in a good car?

For that we must look at their other performances. As alonso has said about Vettel; when he has a car able to do 4-5th and he can put it on pole or win a race then he's on a similar level to Lewis. Winning in a top car does not make you a GOAT in and of itself. Schumachers titles were easier to obtain than hamiltons but despite having a dominant car, Schumacher was still something special - same with Hamilton (but not Vettel as my explanation shall show).

To determine if someone is a GOAT you need to look at how they perform throughout their entire career and how they stack up against team mates. Losing out to a team mate does not preclude someone from being a goat. It all depends on WHY.

Prost was out scored by John Watson but at the same time beat senna. Alonso and Hamilton both dropped a season to button. To determine if the driver is actually really good you need to consider a lot of other factors and really examine why this occurred. Clearly Watson is not better than Prost...

If we take Hamilton and button as an example - since this is the other argument people have against Hamilton being one of the GOATS. Hamilton was ahead in the majority of two car finishes(24 v 13) and dominated button in qualifying (44 v 14). He also had more dnfs and a lot of those were when leading and beyond his control. Button had considerably less dnfs and they were not from high up on the grid. Just a quick count of some of hamiltons dnfs (he had a lot more than the ones I'm listing) throughout his time with button reveal an easy 150 pts lost.

Spain 2010 - running in second and suffers puncture on LAST lap of race. Retired. Would have won 2010 wdc but for this.

Hungary 2010 - car failure in 4th.

Canada 2011 - button pushes Hamilton Into a wall investigated but no penalty. Button goes onto win race.

2012 European gp - Hamilton in third hit by maldanado on last lap and retires. 20 sec penalty for maldanado.

Singapore 2012 gearbox failure whilst in first place.

2012 Abu Dhabi Hamilton in lead retired due to fuel pressure problem.

2012 Brazilian gp - Hamilton leading and hit by hulkenburg near end of race. Hamilton forced to retire and hulkenburg penalised.

Add those 2012 retirements up and he could have won that title too - I note Vettel and alonso also had some bad luck. Could have won 07 as well if not for his car magically turning off for 30 seconds and going down to 18th in the last race of the season. Vettel on the other hand has won every title he's even had a sniff of winning. But poor alonso The only thing separating alonso from being a 5 x WDC is 8 championship points. Anyway I'm getting off topic here...

Hamilton therefore always had the pace and if he finished the race he would generally beat button. He had problems at the time mainly with bad luck and reliability but also a little with his consistency which is now rectified (see 2011 massa crashes). So yes he dropped a season to button but look at why - pace was always there, and he would have easily out scored button if not for bad luck over the 3 years. Alonso dropped 2015 to button but their car was so bad for it to be representative. Let's not forget button is a WDC and a top driver in his own right.

If a driver dominates the WDC and then gets destroyed by another driver on pure pace to which they have no answer then it's clear the wdc years was the car not them. Hamilton is a genuine talent whereas Vettel should really be thanking newey for his wdcs. If we look at Ricci Vs Vettel, Ricciardo out scored him 238 to 167 and out qualified him 11 to 8. Ricciardo ahead 11-3 in 2 car finishes. Beaten on pure pace and no excuses. Vettel can only drive one type of car - and to illustrate my point - in the first race of 2014 with the new regs he qualified a whole 2.5 seconds behind Ricciardo. An absolute age in f1.


Currently vettel is losing out to Kimi who we know is not very good after seeing what alonso did to him (out qualified 16 -3 and scored 161 points to kimis 55. Alonso also had more retirements ). Vettel and kimis head to head over one and a half seasons is 23-8 to Vettel in qualy and 398 to 272 points - Kimi having 7 DNF to vettels 3 and one DNS, meaning Kimi should be even closer). Overall Vettel is beating him but no way by the margin alonso did and as Kimi ages he's probably only getting worse.

The problem with Vettel is he is very one dimensional. He is a prod of the blown diffuser - get on the power early after the apex and the downforce prevents the car sliding out. Give him a car that exactly suits his needs and he will be as good as Hamilton and alonso would be in that car. Red bull and newey trickery were able to replicate High downforce levels even after the blown diffuser was banned. Now in the new turbo era with less downforce Vettel is lost. In any car other than one that exactly suits his driving style he's average.
He cannot maximise the result of any car like alonso or Hamilton and that's why he's not a great. I think he should fair better next year with the increase in downforce though. Not to mention vettels performances plummet when someone starts to beat him - which is why red bull told Vettel he had a cracked chassis when Webber was beating him for awhile. Which is why he jumped ship to Ferrari when Ricciardo dominated him and insisted on being able to veto his team mates. Not to mention having parts ripped off webbers car when Vettel crashed his own. Too fragile for a championship battle against a true contender. Just look at Vettel in formula 3 - although Lewis had a better car in 2005 it's much closer to a spec series than f1 is - Lewis demolished him and won virtually every race. Vettel was way down the standings. Then in 2006 Vettel couldn't even beat his team mate Paul Di reista. Driving for the same that team Hamilton drove for in 2005, he didn't even score half the points ham did. Vettels inability to extract the maximum out of ANY car is why he will never be as good as Hamilton and alonso. He still has a chance to change that but currently he sits a good 5-7 rankings in try GOAT list below alonso and hamilton in my view.

In summary, winning in a top car does not make you a top driver without more. To be a GOAT you need to be a complete driver. Vettel isn't. Schumacher alonso and Hamilton are. Blistering pace, mental strength, race craft and most importantly consistency along with the ability to extract the maximum from any car. Prior to his Mercedes years Hamilton was not a complete driver but he certainly had the potential. As far as I'm aware he's the only driver in f1 history to score a pole and victory in every season he had competed in and was also able to win a WDC in a non WCC winning car. Hamilton is consistent now and a complete driver which is why he is one of the greatest of all time. It is scary to think that it was a rookie and inconsistent Hamilton that dethroned alonso. It would be scary to think what Hamilton may be able to do now...

As an aside, people seem to think Hamilton entering f1 in a top car somehow diminishes his achievements. Jackie Stewart also entered f1 in a top car capable of winning a WDC. His team mate, graham hill, is not rated as highly as alonso. Hill convincing beat Jackie to finish second in the WDC. And Jim Clark, in a car about on par as the BRM dominated them both. The more I learn about Clark the more I'm starting to think he was the best of all time just died far too early to show it. But anyway, Stewart was never on the level Hamilton is. Cevert was faster than him but team orders made Jackie look better than he is (e.g in the 1973 South African gp Stewart crashed his car in qualifying but they gave him ceverts car and cervert received Stewart's car which they patched up as best they could). Jackie is overrated as hell. Did a lot for the sport but in terms of racing ability not even in the top 10 imo.

Anyway... with logical reasoning and analysis it's clear Hamilton is one of the very best drivers to ever race in f1. Sheep will bleat the same argument "all he has to do is beat rosberg in a dominant car" which is akin to saying "Schumacher sucks because all he had to do was beat barrichello". And as demonstrated above, Schumachers run of titles were probably the easiest in all f1 against an untalented grid. The sheep will also say, Hamilton started in a top car he was lucky. Stewart started in a top car and didn't perform as well as Lewis - plus you get what you deserve, if you are good enough to start f1 in a top car you deserve it. It's the analysis and career as a whole that is important. The development curve of a driver is important to follow - it's about what they BECOME. People who are not insightful can easily miss that. Now I've effectively dealt with all arguments against hamiltons status as a great, I hope we can finally have some peace around here.

 

"Stewart overrated as hell"? Really? In his 1st and only Indy 500 appearance he was easily leading when the car broke with about 10 laps to go. He won 27 of 99 GP races, and by far the majority of his wins were in completely unproven cars (Matra, March, Tyrrell). How many GPs did others win in that equipment?
Sir Jackie was and remains one of the dozen greatest GP drivers ever. This is, obviously, only my opinion but I seriously question your rationale for your above-quoted evaluation.

 

Sounds good, except for the last bit ..lol

 

My man is back ... and in full effect !!!



G

 

+44 😜

 

+1

Yes, Jackie Stewart is surely one of the great drivers. Not only by his impressive tally, but by the way he won his races too, almost 27% of them.

Winning the German GP at the Nurburgring by a margin of ... 5 minutes !!
Also, the Matra-Ford was cobbled together from a F2 chassis. Stewart won with it.
Stewart is the only one to ever win a GP on a March, and he later drove and won with the home-made Tyrrell built on a shoestring.

Also, Stewart drove from Ken Tyrrell, in an outfit consisting of 2 wooden barns in the middle of nowhere, with few resources, hardly any staff and low on equipment. Compared to Lotus, McLaren, Brabham at the time, the Tyrrell organisation looked very, but very basic to say the least. Stewart never enjoyed the spare cars and spare engines available to drivers in other teams.

Once, Stewart had engine trouble during practice at Monaco, and no spare. Cosworth could lend one, but it was in England, and Tyrrell couldn't afford the airfreight cost. Ken Tyrrell flew to Norhampton, borrowed a Granada Estate from a Ford dealer, picked up the engine at Cosworth, took the ferry and drove back himself overnight to Monaco where the engine was fitted for qualifs.
This to illustrate the lack of money at Tyrrrell.
Nevertheless, Stewart loved to drive for Tyrrell, and even turned down an offer at Ferrari!!

Anybody who says "Stewart is overrated as hell" doesn't know what he is talking about or is not playing with a full deck of cards.
They don't make them anymore like Sir Jackie or Ken Tyrrell.

 

Comes back. Writes a massive essay of boring, self indulgent drivel, I haven't got the time nor the patience to pull apart the glaring errors throughout, but I'll treat the post with the contempt it deserves, and remind - Schumacher IS the GOAT, if there is such a thing, and Elton will never be thought of in the same way due to the fact he is technically incompetent, arrogant, classless and his achievements have shown nothing but that he is one of the quicker drivers today, and drives the absolutely most dominant F1 car since F1 started. I would be champion in that car

 

'i would be champion in that car'

Yeh ,only problem is you would have to earn yourself a super licence before they let you loose in it !