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

Simply love it when someone lists their GOATS and misspell names

 

ALL internet sports chat sites are forums for opinion. But it seems some people insist that their opinions are more "correct" than others.

So please remember that your opinion is yours. And while you're free to share it please don't think it's anything other than opinion.

Have a nice day.

 

Graham

 

sorry - you're right spelling is not my strong suit.

 

I was thinking maybe also Fittipalidi or Piquet, but something tells me he would probably have one at least 1 more if his life wasn't cut short.

 

I certainly agree, my list is just my opinion, not a claim on any objective truth.

Cheers

 

I think pretty much anyone that has more than 1 championship was close to winning more, "coulda, woulda, shoulda"

 

Go on! Tell us your list !

I have mine, without any pretention of naming the "best", or the most successful, but simply the drivers I like and who deserve an accolade in my own "hall of fame". In an imaginary world, the drivers I would have liked to be, perhaps. So for once, it's completely subjective. They are more my favourites than anything else.

- Fangio. I am very impressed by a driver who started in F1 so late and still won 5 titles for 4 different makes.
- Stirling Moss. Never WDC but always close. A true racer who won on different cars and often for private teams.
- Jim Clark. He seemed to drive effortlessly. A highly gifted driver on the track, and a gentleman off it.
- Jackie Stewart. Almost equal to Clark, but had to work harder for it. Another perfect gent for me.
- Niki Lauda. Niki applied his intelligence to racing. A very couragous driver who never compromised
- Alain Prost. Another "cerebral" driver in the Lauda mould who quietly brought a methodic approach to racing. My favourite.

 

Interesting. I've never really considered a driver's engineering or mechanical background as much of a factor in a top 10 drivers list. However, it should be considered what a driver brings to the table (with the exception of money or resources) which lead to success. Driver's like Dan Gurney who could directly develop a car to be fastest has to be considered a trait to his success. Same thing with a driver's ability to give feedback which helps set up the car or develops the car to be faster. On the flip side, just because a driver could change a tire doesn't mean he's a better driver because of it.

I also think the newer generation of fans might watch the movie Rush and think Niki Lauda designed and built his Ferrari in the garage overnight and made it 2 seconds faster. That scene was insulting to the Ferrari engineers and mechanics.

 

And insulting to the audience. The miraculous transformation at his first BRM test was equally absurd.

 

I hear ya. I don't think Lauda was as instrumental to dev then Braham though. Just my $0.02

 

Hollywood!

 

and builder - he had to get the money together too, manage the team and get the team to show up. he also produced some of the best in the business... Denny Hulme, Bruce McLaren, Ron Dennis, Jackie Ickxx, they all started with "black Jack Brabham." and not to forget Ron Tauranac who hired on Gordon Murray and was partners with Ecclestone, all that happened because of Jack Brabham.

 

The scene in the Garage from RUSH is a total fabrication. Lauda said that in the interviews with Peter Morgan he told the story about how he would work with the mechanics at BRM, and over time they started to make the car reliable, It was a good car to set up, and easy to drive. Its where he noted that what he was feeling was correct vs. at March where Robin Heard said he ( Lauda ) did not know anything - and that Ronnie Peterson was the benchmark. Truth is Peterson just could drive a terrible car fast - Lauda could not. Peterson did not know what to change etc... At BRM Lauda found out what changes worked, step by step, vs. making large incremental changes that they did at March.

Lauda at Ferrari did tell Enzo that the B3 was crap, and that it understeered. However he also spent a lot of time with Forghieri who explained what he was doing and proposing, so Lauda could make the best set up. In the movie the part where he is 2 S faster is From when He was testing the car at Montjuic park - and he was fastest out of the other two BRM's... which i think he attributed to tires, and softer ( worn out ) springs. ....

Lauda was very good at car set up, and bringing feedback to the designer. even at McLaren he was behind the MP4/2 development. He "taught" Prost set up... what sets Lauda apart is knowing what the car is doing - when its actually doing it, remembering it, and clearly explaining it. Prost & Senna were excellent at that too. Jackie Stewart also was very good at understanding the baseline, and making one change at a time.

At Ferrari's test track, Lauda would literally test one change at a time, lap after lap, vs. Reggazoni who would just drive the hell out of the car chasing lap time.

 

I guess the "GOAT"s would be the people who have won a drivers championship, and the one who wins the most is the best. so from that perspective Hamilton is the guy.

I read some people dont want to be told someones opinion like its the truth, but the truth of the matter is, if you have won a Championship -you are the best there is - at least at that time.

there are many great drivers who did not win a championship that deserve credit... but from a Factual point of view - hard to argue with the evidence. My assertion is that Fangio is still the best - as his percentage of wins vs. starts is still the highest.

 

In @william defense, he's right - I should not have used the term GOAT without making it plural.

My acronym should be (GDOAT) "greatest drivers of all time"

 

On second thought, Vettel is the GOAT!

NOT!!

I loath that driver (not personally of course).

 

I don't see how he could be called the greatest when for 7 years he has had a car that seemed far superior to the rest of the field. If he would have been in an Alpha then it's a different story

 

When you look at the older generation of drivers, they dealt with more risk, uncertainty and car that had no aero. Those were true legends of the sport to be able to drive those speed on tires smaller than today’s spares. Not saying today’s drivers are not good, but don’t think they could hang in a similar car with the legends of the sport

 

No. he has yet to prove anything from a normal car.

 

Yes, Graham Hill, the only driver who won the Monaco GP (several times), Le Mans and the Indy 500.

Without forgetting he was twice WDC. Yet, he wasn't the fastest but often played his cards right.

A good entertainer too....

 

BUT.... a bad airplane pilot .... #NotTooSoon #AlmostFiftyYearsAgo #ItIsAJokePeople

 

-Schumacher for the 1996-1999 years.
-Prost because he was able to win a championship with his brain.
-Fangio for the same reasons as you.
-Lauda for his intelligence and capacity to master his physical pain.
-Stewart for being such a precursor of the modern driver.
-Clark for his pure driving.
-Alonso ( sorry Pedro) for being a racing beast.
I will never forget the 2012 season.

Just my list today, could change tomorrow..

 

Agreed, a great contributor to the world of Motorsport. Lost to us all far too soon. RIP.

 

I Think its fair to say from the late 60's drivers had Aero - it was just rudimentary compared to todays cars. Remember the high wings of 68 - 69? when one of them broke under aero load - it nearly killed people.... Tire technology was also at the cutting edge of the day just like today... but you are correct they were learning to deal with more change than ever before. I think the modern drivers could adapt, but it would take time... I Think the limiting factor would be manual gears... it would take a lot of time to get used to that... and be fast.