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

We had an FChat thread with a title to that effect once.

 

When someone gets more than 103 wins (Max has 21?) they can wear the crown as most successful driver in F1's history. Until then, you guys can spend your time fussing over who's mom bakes the best cookies or gives the greatest hugs, because GOAT has become an emotional term for the fans and thus meaningless (greatest, bestest, favorite, man crush).

To put things in perspective, Max has half the race starts (almost 150) to Lewis's (almost 300) but only 21 wins to Lewis's 103 wins. It won't be easy for anyone to post a more successful record in F1 anytime soon.

 

And why do you think Hamilton has 103 wins ?
Obviously he must be the best driver, yes ?

 

7 titles, 103 Poles, 103 GP wins, 182 Podiums, 5270 laps led.

That's an impressive tally by any account.

 

You draw your own conclusion, but he is the most successful driver.

F1 is about success, and it celebrates successful drivers.

 

Let's see if Ham is better than George

 

There’s no question about it,
But what exactly does this impressive list mean for you?
Admiration?
Like something really remarkable?

 

Getting back to the original question 432 posts ago it really comes down to what the definition of 'greatest of all time' is. From that definition the answer is much easier to determine.

If you believe that greatness is a measure of tangible success then Lewis Hamilton has a score card that is un-equaled in the history of the modern era of F1. He does not hold every record but he holds most of the ones people see as important and moreover he holds them by some margin. Regardless of the quality of the machinery at his disposal, the sheer numbers and longevity of his success make his achievements difficult to question.

If you want to throw in any number of un-quantifiable items then the discussion of 'greatest' becomes a question of personal preference and there are endless opinions out there to qualify who is the GOAT. That then becomes a discussion with no measurable way of determining an answer and as such is a path I have little interest in arguing.

I'll apologize for applying reason to the discussion. Please feel free to carry on

 

McDonalds is the most successful burger joint.

 

When one follows a sport, it's to look for winners and acknowledge their success.
A driver who has a lot of success, that means something for me.
Yes, I find that remarkable.

 

You're right, both Senna and Schumacher were remarkable

 

And what has that to do with F1 ?

You are trolling again !

 

Ham is F1's very own McDonalds.

On the bright side he won't be cruising again to another WDC for a while.

Maybe George can show him how to drive the new Merc

 

Maybe not, least he didnt need a Masi hand out though. Or have contracted number 2 drivers then get owned by Rosberg x3 seasons in a row in eqaul cars....

Records books will always remeber LH and MSC though, no one will remeber yours or my opinion... Great isnt it...

 

So you put your faith in records books as a force multiplier with regards to F1 then??

 

So Bottas was not a strategic lapdog for 5 years ?


Let's see if Ham can catch George this season

 

I understand really really well that no driver would win a championship with out the car... No Fangio, no LH, no Max, no body and i mean no one is running on foot beating an f1 car, so im pretty sure all champions are kinda fake and win because of the car ( unless your max and get a hand out from the racing director...)

Its why i follow f1 and Ferrari and not any driver, unless they are driving for Ferrari untill they no longer do ofc...

 

Eh.... Bottas didnt beat him, because lewis was better, Bottas admits it him self in the repeated video max fans keep posting.....

But, he is the most successful driver ever.. You cant name a champion with as many records... Thats fact...

If people want to down play champions and give all the credit to the car, im well up for that....

I already understand f1 is about the teams...

Do you?

 

It's really about being adaptive to the rule changes in F1 that make a great F1 driver truly stand out than what the so called record books suggest in F1 for the past 25 plus years as technology moves forward.

Schumacher had a hard time adapting. Vettel has had a hard time adapting.

Probably, but still in the early days, Lewis MIGHT have a hard time adapting. If so, then Lewis was great under the turbo-hybrid era AND under those rules and regulations.

 

MSC won two WDC's despite the Williams being over 1 second a lap quicker, plus the FIA ganging up on him for years.

By contrast Ham enjoyed a compliant FIA for many years.

 

Yes Mercedes is the greatest team of all time.
Unlikely to ever be repeated.

Yes Bottas was hired to keep Hamilton on target for more WDC's. He didn't want another Rosberg for 5 years, and Bottas was only given 11 month contracts to ensure he was kept on a tight leash.

Mercedes now have another worthy driver in Russell. Let's see what happens.

 

I think the point is that being the most successful doesn't have anything to do with being the best. I can think of lots of burgers that are more desirable than McDonalds. However, there's no arguing with the fact that McDonalds sells more burgers, however mediocre they may be. Likewise, there are plenty of drivers that are better than Hamilton...they just weren't driving THE dominant car of the Hybrid era.

I think the analogy was very appropriate and thought provoking. The opposite of trolling...

 

By nature, motorsport has always been man+machine. You cannot disassociate them.

I think Enzo Ferrari was more interested in the success of his cars than his drivers.

Men were always expendable for him, and I can see his point.

A driver who is successful in different teams and against different team mates is a cut above his peers, IMO.

 

And in different era's of F1.

 

I would be surprised if a driver can create alone the environment that suits him best, dictate the rules, or influence the officials.