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

That's my point. He has a right to disagree with the rule. He can come up with a good argument and use his words to try and have the rule changed. I would support his fight to change the rule as I can't see a reason for it being in place. Unless there is a safety or medical reason for the rule to exist, then on what grounds does the FIA have to keep in place? But Lewis doesn't want to do that. The loudest mouth on the grid and the supposed biggest advocator of change and progress, and he simply just breaks the rules as a big FU to the government body that allows him to earn a living, and doesn't even try form an argument.

 

It goes further than piercing and jewelry. Even the wearing of underwear was brought up at this race with regards to the rule.

 

+1000

hammer-->nail-->head

 

I think Hamilton has an argument, but doesn't present it correctly.
To confront that rule, he should have gathered evidences of its irelevence, medical opinions, safety aspect, human rights issues, etc ...
Instead he had a knee-jerk reaction, which won't probably go down well at the FIA.

 

I can understand the imposition of flameproof underwear because there is reasonable argument for that rule.
It comes in the same spirit as the imposition of crash helmet, suit, gloves, and the seat belt, etc ...

But not being allowed to wear a wedding ring, a chain and medal or a watch?
What about surgical metal implants?

 

Jewelry has been prohibited since 2005, for safety reasons.

Especially chains which can obstruct the airways.

 

I don't consider that a valid reason. How can a neck chain obstruct the airways?

It would be interesting to know if airline pilots, or air force flying personel are forbidden to wear jewelry, for example.

 

Metal as in jewelry get hot in a fire. Lulu isn’t smart enough to know that

 

Use your imagination. Perhaps in a bit of a decent shunt somehow the necklace gets twisted around another bit in the cockpit and chokes the driver. Just a guess. Not entire impossible I'd say?

 

GOAT silliness.

GOATs do not almost lose to Massa or lose to Rosberg. Good driver certainly, GOAT nope.

 

He is the GOAT at whining

 

The most successful is not same with being the best or the greatest. They are 3 entirely different things.

 

We ALL know the real reason for his defiance, but it may be misinterpreted as P&R if stated here .......... but my saving grace is that I might get a pass if I said it, think about it.....

 

Possibly. There's more P&R I could get into myself.

 

Well said, my Corpus brother.... come down to the RGV anytime! I can also come up. I do it about every 2 weeks, en route to SAN or IAH.

 

My brother and his wife are federal agents in between McAllen and Mission (Sharyland??).

I'll PM you when I go down to see them. I miss the RGV's botana's. I also go to Alamo to eat at Willie B's bbq.

 

Absolutely !

Success can be measured objectively by the stats.

"Best" or "Great" are bubjective notions that cannot.

 

Well Schumacher lost to rosberg - 3 years in a row
Prost lost to senna
Senna lost to Prost

We all lose to someone at some point, specially if you get older or in a bad car.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Another weekend, another brick in the wall of Lewis' legacy.

 

I don’t know that that’s the reason the championship was “created.” The “stats” are just the mechanism by which the championship is decided. Statistics ≠ greatness.

 

The championship* was decided as a framework with some common technical and sporting rules to crown the most deserving driver.

Before there were many stand-alone races each with their own set of rules.


Championship* The European drivers championship from 1931 to 1939.
The World Drivers Championship since 1950.

 

Yes, I’m aware of the history, but the championship was not created to determine the “greatest,” just the most successful driver in a particular season. It’s even possible, theoretically, to win championships without winning a race. Rules manipulating points allocations are done simply to create an artificial form of excitement or suspense over a season, in much the same way that tire management regulations are intended to create artificial excitement during a race.

 

WCC points are what F1 is about.

 

I don't know of any sport that try to find who's the "greatest"; they all determine a champion.
Like I keep repeating "greatest" is a purely subjective noting involving emotional attachment.
People can have different "greatest" in mind, like they have different favourite singer, a prefered politician or different God, etc ...
Yes, it's possible to be WDC without winning a GP; it's based purely on points collected through the season, and not on wins.
Yes the rules may change, the formula too, and the point scoring method but the goal is to win the title within the rules each year.

 

People who ignore the statistics end up with marketing speak as in "The Greatest Cup of Coffee" signs at 400 diners across NYC.

Emotional words or "marketing spin" like greatest or best are worthless. The most successful driver in F1's history is the guy with the most wins, as he was able to find and partner with the best teams/cars more often then his rivals, and compete against young guns longer across more races and more seasons.

People who don't want to admit the simplicity of this will tie themselves in knots to keep from admitting the simple truth. When any driver gets more wins than Lewis they will become the most successful driver in F1. Until then, Lewis is the answer to the OP's question.
Image Unavailable, Please Login