Sir Lewis Hamilton is the GOAT

[Born Racer]

Re: Prost, an underrated four-time champion up against an exciting talent who grabs the attention and is easier to rate as the current best, is there any parallel with Vettel? Would anyone venture that he is up there as a GOAT or am I just teasing?

[Aysedasi]

Teasing, definitely......

[Born Racer]

I'm assuming no-one would make a case for placing him well up the list then.

[Adam43]

I would. If Senna is then Prost is well up on the list and of course Senna is.

[S griffin]

I think Prost deserves to be up there. Senna was a great talent in his own way, but Prost was something else. Senna deserved to be champion, but Prost was one everyone looked up to and for me was the standout driver of that era. Who knows how much more success he could have achieved had he actually gone to Williams instead of Ferrari? He was at the top of his game in the early 90s and could have gone on for two or three more years after 93

[Kato]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I think Prost deserves to be up there. Senna was a great talent in his own way, but Prost was something else. Senna deserved to be champion, but Prost was one everyone looked up to and for me was the standout driver of that era. Who knows how much more success he could have achieved had he actually gone to Williams instead of Ferrari? He was at the top of his game in the early 90s and could have gone on for two or three more years after 93

Yes Prost.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I think Prost deserves to be up there. Senna was a great talent in his own way, but Prost was something else. Senna deserved to be champion, but Prost was one everyone looked up to and for me was the standout driver of that era.

You have the words "Senna" and "Prost" the wrong way round throughout these two sentences.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Re: Prost, an underrated four-time champion up against an exciting talent who grabs the attention and is easier to rate as the current best, is there any parallel with Vettel? Would anyone venture that he is up there as a GOAT or am I just teasing?

It's actually a good point you raise. Prost and Vettel have similar stats, but Vettel particularly is diminished.

Vettel's comparable stats are a reflection of the change in nature how F1/racing has evolved.

This millennium, F1 is so expensive and strict on tech regs, and the sporting regs favour the the best car, that it's impossible to overcome and advantage of the best car, and much easier to maintain it if you do. Money makes more of a difference than before. The merit of total wins isn't as impressive as it would be if similar occurred up until the 90s. The difference being is that you couldn't rack up those kind of stats.

Prost's 4 titles are of greater merit (Including the freebie in 93) than Schumacher's 5 at Ferrari, Vettel's 4, and Hamilton's last 6.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It's always good to see a balance of argument, where one side puts forward their case based on Mathematical and Statistical insights - speaking from a position of authority with a PhD in Applied Mathematics, and the other puts forward their case based on their counterpart being a young theatregoer.

That guy has taken a crap on every period of racing.

The article is behind a paywall. So of the opinion is that Jackie Stewart is the best of all time, then I can diminish all of his titles with lame points like ol' mate Kevin.

Imagine leaving Lauda, and particularly Prost, out of the equation due to not being the "outright fastest" in his era? It's an opinion based of a complete lack of knowledge and even an attempt to understand racing of the time..

Even if it was a fact, then someone like Villeneuve would be fastest, but Kevin has left him out!

Then again, to work for Autosport you have to demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of racing.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Yes, it is. Exactly that. It's such a nuisance that other people have opinions....

What's BTCC frog's opinion when he finds out that in the 8 full seasons they raced in F1 (Including season where they missed 2 races each), Schumacher drove a car that finished ahead of Hakkinen's in 7 of those seasons?

In the one season Hakkinen drove the better car overall, he belatedly won a championship.

Not 3 in 5 seasosn Hakkinen drove an inferior car, 7 of 8! On top of that, it was normally 2 positions worse off in the wcc.

Then you add that prior to F1, both won F3 titles, but Hakkinen turned up in the German series and won there as well.

How confident is he of his opinion?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Imagine leaving Lauda, and particularly Prost, out of the equation due to not being the "outright fastest" in his era? It's an opinion based of a complete lack of knowledge and even an attempt to understand racing of the time..

Even if it was a fact, then someone like Villeneuve would be fastest, but Kevin has left him out!

Lauda and Prost are completely in the equation of that article. And Villeneuve is brought up too for his sheer speed.

Just one time they are mentioned:

Before comparing across eras, it's an easier task to select the standout drivers of their generation. These are the competitors who not only racked up impressive numbers (primarily in the wins department) but who were regarded by many of their peers as the benchmark.

Starting from 1950, that gives us a list of Fangio, Moss, Jim Clark, Jackie Stewart, Niki Lauda, Alain Prost, Ayrton Senna, Michael Schumacher and Lewis Hamilton. To those could be added Alberto Ascari, Gilles Villeneuve and Alonso, but we will come to those later.

Later they are brought up again and their brilliance highlighted.

Pros and cons are put forward for many drivers. It reflects that there have been many fantastic drivers and many could be considered to be the greatest.

The writer has the ability to consider that things aren’t clear cut, offer many fors and againsts, and understand that others may judge it differently and have a different opinion.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

So is the conclusion that Jackie Stewart is the best driver?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

So is the conclusion that Jackie Stewart is the best driver?

Yes

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Only one driver remains, having all the factors required to be the Greatest of all Time, and therefore being considered the GOAT. That driver is Jackie Stewart.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

So is the conclusion that Jackie Stewart is the best driver?

Yes, I don't really agree with it.

It's an interesting read.

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

What's BTCC frog's opinion when he finds out that in the 8 full seasons they raced in F1 (Including season where they missed 2 races each), Schumacher drove a car that finished ahead of Hakkinen's in 7 of those seasons?

In the one season Hakkinen drove the better car overall, he belatedly won a championship.

Not 3 in 5 seasosn Hakkinen drove an inferior car, 7 of 8! On top of that, it was normally 2 positions worse off in the wcc.

Then you add that prior to F1, both won F3 titles, but Hakkinen turned up in the German series and won there as well.

How confident is he of his opinion?

Okay, I'm not sure if you're saying that Hakkinen is better than Schumacher, or just that Schumacher is not the fastest driver of all time. By the way, I'm not saying Schumacher is the greatest driver of all time - I excluded him from that list because of Jerez 1997. I'm also not saying that he's the fastest on raw speed - that title definitely goes to Ayrton Senna. My argument is that, if there was a championship for every driver in history in equal cars (of course this is difficult to measure because of the differences between cars from different eras (Hamilton wouldn't beat Fangio in a 1950s car, but Fangio wouldn't beat Hamilton in a 2010s car), but lets just pretend that the cars they were driving all suited their driving styles, but were equally good), Michael Schumacher would win the championship, and I stand by that opinion.

I am going to assume you are arguing that Hakkinen was better than Schumacher. If this is not the case, I am sorry, but I don't see how Hakkinen can be used as an example to why Schumacher was less good than Hamilton, or Fangio, or Senna, so I will have to assume that you are arguing that Hakkinen was better than Schumacher.
Now you say that Hakkinen drove an inferior car to Schumacher in most of the seasons that they were in Formula 1. I'm sorry, but this is a totally pointless argument, because Hakkinen didn't beat Schumacher in those seasons. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but 1992, for example, is not evidence that Hakkinen is better than Schumacher, because Schumacher beat Hakkinen in a superior car. This proves nothing. Then, in 1994 Schumacher won the championship, with Hakkinen not even close on points (92 vs 26), but Schumacher again was in a superior car, so it proves nothing. What I will say is that I think the Williams was a lot better than the Benetton, so the fact that Schumacher beat him to the championship was very impressive. But Hakkinen beat Alesi in a slower car, of course. One way to try and compare them is through teammates. The Hakkinen-Herbert comparison is hard to make for the races, because the Lotus was so unreliable in 1992, but in qualifying Hakkinen was only just ahead (average 12.5 to 13.1). Schumacher was a lot further ahead of Herbert in 1995, but it is not a particularly fair comparison as it doesn't show the closeness in time, just in positions, and I cannot find the data for the differences in time. According to these stats, Hakkinen was slightly further ahead of Brundle than Schumacher was, but don't forget that Hakkinen had a whole season's more experience than Schumacher had at the times that they faced Brundle.

In 1996, Schumacher scored almost double the points of Hakkinen, but Irvine finished behind Coulthard. Was Irvine really that much worse than Coulthard? I don't think so. I think the Ferrari was superior to the McLaren in 1996, but not by the margin that Schumacher beat Hakkinen. I think Schumacher was considerably better than Hakkinen this year. Then to 1997. Schumacher was disqualified this year, and for this reason he cannot be the greatest of all time. But in terms of the championship that I discussed earlier, this disqualification is irrelevant, and the important thing is the overall season. Schumacher dragged his Ferrari within three points of Jacques Villeneuve in a Williams that was so much better. Meanwhile, Hakkinen was beaten by Coulthard. This year, Schumacher was a lot better than Hakkinen, and I think the driver made a big difference here, not just the car - again the Ferrari was better, but the McLaren was not too far off. Schumacher made the difference.

Now, 1998. Here, Hakkinen had the dominant car, but only just edged out Schumacher by fourteen points. Schumacher was the better driver overall. Of course, Hakkinen was a lot further ahead of Coulthard this year than in previous years, maybe because Hakkinen improved, or maybe because Coulthard was much worse than before. It is hard to say, but I still think Schumacher was the better driver this year. You have then rightly ignored 1999 due to Schumacher's injury, but then we get to 2000, where Schumacher just beat Hakkinen in a close fight. But was the Ferrari definitely better than the McLaren? Coulthard beat Barrichello in the championship, and Barrichello had done a brilliant job in previous seasons. One factor that hasn't been considered here is that Schumacher was given preferential treatment by Ferrari, but I don't think that made as big a difference as some have made it seem. Finally, 2001, where Hakkinen had a shocker of a season, and Schumacher dominated the championship. Seeing as Schumacher had a horrible time in 2010-2012, I think I will allow Hakkinen this bad season and not count it against him.

So, overall, I would agree with you that Hakkinen was a very good driver, and is definitely in the top twenty of all time. But he was not on Schumacher's level. Maybe you were not arguing that Hakkinen was better than Schumacher, and were simply arguing that Schumacher is not the fastest driver, but if this is true you cannot use Hakkinen as proof for this. So the 'inferior car' idea doesn't work, because Schumacher beat Hakkinen in his 'superior car,' so it proves nothing. You mentioned the F3 titles, and I don't think this is relevant to the comparison in Formula 1, as Formula 3 is very different. For an example in recent times, Pierre Gasly only just beat a rookie Antonio Giovinazzi to the GP2 crown in 2016, when they were teammates, so Giovinazzi seemed like the better driver. But now look at them in Formula 1. Gasly is a race winner, and Giovinazzi has had a very poor last two years. I stand by my opinion that Schumacher would have won the previously mentioned championship.

[hoffman66]

GOAT stuff always provides endless discussion, for me there is no such thing.

The modern era has hugely dominant periods for drivers like Michael, Vettel, Lewis, where there really was no rival and as soon as one came along their dominance was pulled apart.

GOAT therefore is one who attracts respect from any era, and that seems to be Clark, Fangio and the like, those guys stayed alive and were peerless. In Britain everyone goes on about Moss, but in reality Fangio smoked him in the same car, so that shuts that up.

Lewis was distinctly average after his title at McLaren, and has since dominated in a dominant car, similarly Vettel has consistently proved he is nothing special without a Red Bull advantage and Danny smoked him in his one year with a turbo, so he is discounted from that period for me.

I rate titles from guys like Lauda, Ascari, Stewart as those were far tougher periods on the driver.

[john ruston]

Think winner is Kevin Turner who has written an article in Autosport that has lots of folks on here wound up.
Autosport needs all the mileage they can get.
Grant spirit not lost
My ideas
Prost better race driver than Senna.
Question marks over three of Schumacher titles
Fangio had best car in limited field but 55 was a good measure with his worth against Moss
Hamilton had some unusual mechanical problems against Rosberg
Conclusion is that Fangio, Clark,Stewart , Schumacher, and Hamilton were best of their eras.
Who was best , who knows . Flip a coin

[john ruston]

Left Senna of list as best in his era but it’s very close with Prost!

[Anyopenroad]

That article is no different in its logic than what everyone else has been doing in this thread: define an arbitrary and subjective list of criteria then arbitrarily and subjectively assess drivers against those criteria to arrive at the same concluison you'd have come to if asked to to name the GOAT off the top of your head. It's brilliant, I love it!

My contribution to this delightfully human way of debating is to rule out Senna and Schumacher for being willing to deliberately drive their rivals off the track. Murray Walker agrees with me here so I must be right.

I'd also point out that if Hamilton drove under the same team conditions that Schumacher had at Ferrari, he'd have one more world title and at least another dozen or so wins. And that Clark's ability to build up as big a legacy as Stewart's was hampered by, well, dying.

But then, I don't like the way Stewart has spent the last decade putting Hamilton down so finding an irrelevant reason not to rate him highly suits me nicely.

[john ruston]

The Stewart / Hamilton thing is straightforward
The higher profile for Lewis the less income for wee Jackie!

[S griffin]

I think Stewart has done a lot for the sport and certainly we should be thankful for that. He certainly deserved his world titles, even though he didn't quite have the competition there was in the 60s with the likes of Clark, Surtees, Brabham, McLaren etc. Hamilton has done well to get where he is, it certainly could have been a very different story had the cards not all fallen his way, certainly he made his own luck

Anyway I'm sure JYS doesn't begrudge Lewis' success too much, they both fought hard to get where they are

[john ruston]

You are jesting about Stewart not being ****ed off with Hamilton’s success?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by john ruston

You are jesting about Stewart not being ****ed off with Hamilton’s success?

Why would Stewart be ****ed off with Hamilton’s success?

[john ruston]

Money and encroaching on his income!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by john ruston

Money and encroaching on his income!

Encroaching on his income?