Sir Lewis Hamilton is the GOAT

[wnut]

Originally Posted by john ruston

More so at the proper Ring?

Masta Kink alone puts Monaco in the shade.

Comparing modern drivers to those of the late 60s is like comparing Chinese Checkers to playing Hopscotch on a minefield.

[john ruston]

Now we’re at Francochamps!
I went to 65 Belgium GP and at end of first lap Clark was way ahead of Stewart who was way ahead of rest.
Not bad as he detested the place!

[FastDB2s]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

He won the US GP at Watkins Glen, his only win that year.

Hadn't got my glasses on the read the results in Tremaynes new book, very small writing, had to read Tulloch's older book

[FastDB2s]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

He won the US GP at Watkins Glen, his only win that year.

Your right of course, Hadn't got my glasses on to the read the results in Tremaynes new book, very small writing, had to read Tulloch's older book to check

[BTCC frog]

Brilliant article about this here:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature...st-of-all-time

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Brilliant article about this here:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature...st-of-all-time

Unfortunately the article is subscription only.

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Unfortunately the article is subscription only.

Would it be immoral of me to copy and paste the entire thing onto this thread?

Yes it probably would be. I won't do that, but I will give an overview. It takes a list of drivers who are contenders: Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart, Lauda, Prost, Senna, Schumacher and Hamilton (with a bit on Ascari, G Villeneuve and Alonso too), and then has a list of factors required to be 'the best driver of all time.' It then removes each driver from the list one by one because they are missing one of the factors. 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.

[john ruston]

So Kevin Turner didn’t get that correct.
Must be in a minority of one!
Best his dad doesn’t agree!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Would it be immoral of me to copy and paste the entire thing onto this thread?

Yes it probably would be. I won't do that, but I will give an overview. It takes a list of drivers who are contenders: Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart, Lauda, Prost, Senna, Schumacher and Hamilton (with a bit on Ascari, G Villeneuve and Alonso too), and then has a list of factors required to be 'the best driver of all time.' It then removes each driver from the list one by one because they are missing one of the factors. 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.

I wouldn't expect you to cut and paste but can you elaborate on the factors, if that's feasible?

[chillibowl]

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.

i dont have Stewart in my top 5 even...although i suppose since 'advocacy' is a category i place some value in, then perhaps i should be giving much more credit to Jackie.

would also be curious to know what the factors used were.

[BTCC frog]

Well this is why the others were eliminated from contention:

Fangio/Moss - the 50s were very uncompetitive compared to other eras, so it is hard to rate the best drivers from that era. But the relative lack of competition removed these two from contention (a bit harsh, maybe). Moss also never won a championship, of course.
Ascari - as he only really raced for four (short) seasons, there is not enough data for him to be the best.
Clark - only ever won in dominant cars. Never had a season where he excelled in an uncompetitive car (again, a bit harsh).
Lauda - wasn't the outright fastest driver of his era.
Villeneuve - never really challenged for a championship (apart from 1979, which he lost to his teammate), so it is unknown if he would have been able to win one.
Prost - again, wasn't the outright fastest of his era, and also struggled in the rain.
Senna/Schumacher - obviously, Suzuka 1990 and Jerez 1997 should rule out these two.
Alonso - spent too much of his career driving in the midfield. This was mainly his own fault, for being difficult in Ferrari and McLaren, and his return to McLaren was a bad decision.
Hamilton - considered the second best ever, but did have a horrible 2011 season, and made multiple mistakes in 2016. Stewart never made these mistakes.

I think that much information is fair without it becoming a form of piracy. It's no different to what you might explain to a friend. I think the reasons for 'punishing' Fangio, Clark and Hamilton are a bit harsh. I would consider those three, along with Stewart and Schumacher, the top five of all time. Schumacher is probably the fastest driver ever, the one who would win the championship if every driver in history raced each other in equal cars, but Jerez 1997 should exclude him from being the greatest of all time. Here's a mathematical viewpoint on this debate, which agrees with the Autosport article to an extent:

https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2019...trics-top-100/

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Well this is why the others were eliminated from contention:

Fangio/Moss - the 50s were very uncompetitive compared to other eras, so it is hard to rate the best drivers from that era. But the relative lack of competition removed these two from contention (a bit harsh, maybe). Moss also never won a championship, of course.
Ascari - as he only really raced for four (short) seasons, there is not enough data for him to be the best.
Clark - only ever won in dominant cars. Never had a season where he excelled in an uncompetitive car (again, a bit harsh).
Lauda - wasn't the outright fastest driver of his era.
Villeneuve - never really challenged for a championship (apart from 1979, which he lost to his teammate), so it is unknown if he would have been able to win one.
Prost - again, wasn't the outright fastest of his era, and also struggled in the rain.
Senna/Schumacher - obviously, Suzuka 1990 and Jerez 1997 should rule out these two.
Alonso - spent too much of his career driving in the midfield. This was mainly his own fault, for being difficult in Ferrari and McLaren, and his return to McLaren was a bad decision.
Hamilton - considered the second best ever, but did have a horrible 2011 season, and made multiple mistakes in 2016. Stewart never made these mistakes.

I think that much information is fair without it becoming a form of piracy. It's no different to what you might explain to a friend. I think the reasons for 'punishing' Fangio, Clark and Hamilton are a bit harsh. I would consider those three, along with Stewart and Schumacher, the top five of all time. Schumacher is probably the fastest driver ever, the one who would win the championship if every driver in history raced each other in equal cars, but Jerez 1997 should exclude him from being the greatest of all time. Here's a mathematical viewpoint on this debate, which agrees with the Autosport article to an extent:

https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2019...trics-top-100/

Actually think that’s a relatively fair assessment.

It always amuses me when people class fangio and Clark as the best drivers.....The factors mentioned never seem to come into people’s arguments, so I’m glad Autosport have picked up on it for a change

I’ve always thought Stewart was underrated and doesn’t often come into people’s comsiderations

[john ruston]

It’s worked!
Historically ,since Gregor Grant was editor, Autosport publish articles like this to get people’s interest.
Best one was the Bermuda GP about 1961!
Brabham and Moss side by side at 210 mph

[Richard C]

Determining the "best" is always a fun and entertaining exercise, but since there is no formal definition on how to judge, it is always very subjective. So everyone comes at it from a different angle. And most analysis are still quite subjective even when there is a specific process they are working through.

Even attempts via a quantitative approach still have to be based upon some set of criteria (race wins vs. peers, etc.) which is again subjective. Pick a slightly different set of criteria and you may get a different answer. Which criteria is the right ones? Again, subjective.

Generally that is why I don't get sucked into discussions like this because generally speaking there is no single or "right" answer.

Richard

[Adam43]

That’s a good article. Brings in all the aspects. Asserts a conclusion, but opens all arguments.

We should hang our heads in shame.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Well this is why the others were eliminated from contention:

Fangio/Moss - the 50s were very uncompetitive compared to other eras, so it is hard to rate the best drivers from that era. But the relative lack of competition removed these two from contention (a bit harsh, maybe). Moss also never won a championship, of course.
Ascari - as he only really raced for four (short) seasons, there is not enough data for him to be the best.
Clark - only ever won in dominant cars. Never had a season where he excelled in an uncompetitive car (again, a bit harsh).
Lauda - wasn't the outright fastest driver of his era.
Villeneuve - never really challenged for a championship (apart from 1979, which he lost to his teammate), so it is unknown if he would have been able to win one.
Prost - again, wasn't the outright fastest of his era, and also struggled in the rain.
Senna/Schumacher - obviously, Suzuka 1990 and Jerez 1997 should rule out these two.
Alonso - spent too much of his career driving in the midfield. This was mainly his own fault, for being difficult in Ferrari and McLaren, and his return to McLaren was a bad decision.
Hamilton - considered the second best ever, but did have a horrible 2011 season, and made multiple mistakes in 2016. Stewart never made these mistakes.

Laughable. But that's what you get when young theatregoers make a career out of motorsport journalism.

If that's his opinion on Prost and Lauda, then there's a complete lack of knowledge and context of racing.

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

I think that much information is fair without it becoming a form of piracy. It's no different to what you might explain to a friend. I think the reasons for 'punishing' Fangio, Clark and Hamilton are a bit harsh. I would consider those three, along with Stewart and Schumacher, the top five of all time. Schumacher is probably the fastest driver ever, the one who would win the championship if every driver in history raced each other in equal cars, but Jerez 1997 should exclude him from being the greatest of all time. Here's a mathematical viewpoint on this debate, which agrees with the Autosport article to an extent:

https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2019...trics-top-100/

Well, I suppose it is your opinion.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Schumacher is probably the fastest driver ever, the one who would win the championship if every driver in history raced each other in equal cars.

I'd say that was between him and Senna and everyone knows who my dosh would be on.....

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Laughable. But that's what you get when young theatregoers make a career out of motorsport journalism.

If that's his opinion on Prost and Lauda, then there's a complete lack of knowledge and context of racing.

Well, I suppose it is your opinion.

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

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Laughable. But that's what you get when young theatregoers make a career out of motorsport journalism.

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.

[steve_r]

I have not been to a theatre in ages - does that automatically make my opinion fact?

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by steve_r

I have not been to a theatre in ages - does that automatically make my opinion fact?

Well, I guess that depends on who you agree with.......

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Well, I guess that depends on who you agree with.......

Or who agrees with you.

[Born Racer]

Re: outright fastest driver, you might posit that a driver who is not as ‘talented’ as some of the others (and curiously, by talented, we often tend to speak in those terms about fastest drivers, do we not?) is actually greater, due to having to work harder to achieve what they do.

This qualifies the likes of Prost and Lauda to re-enter the equation. It’s like anyone at school who has to try harder than others to do well - in a way, their achievement is greater, so there’s another factor to consider.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Or who agrees with you.

Touché

[Adam43]

It’s Prosties birthday today.

Factoring in the 1990 Mexican GP I think Prost is the GOAT today.