Sir Lewis Hamilton is the GOAT

[alan1302]

Originally Posted by Skam85

Makes me wonder who the two he thinks could beat him in the same car is..

Himselg, Max, Vettel

[E.B]

Originally Posted by alan1302

Himselg, Max, Vettel

Personally I would think Leclerc over Vettel. Vettel has shown he is no match for Leclerc this year.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

to add to that, do we go by seasons or do we go by races entered by a specific chassis designation? development cycles of the past often meant cars were run over multiple seasons so would have ran more races then one would see in a current F1 season.....

.....rather, if Schumi, Prost, Senna had run more races in seasons in which they won the title would their win totals be higher?

no doubt yes with the MP4/4, but even with Prost or Senna surely that alone doesn't bridge the gap of making up the 40+ less wins deficit they have to LH.

Schumi on the other hand would surely have scored more wins meaning LH might not yet have eclipsed this record.

These are good points and I would like to try and expand.

Let's take the dominant cars from the years you mentioned.

The Prost v Senna 'wars' in McLarens Ferrari and Williams between 88-93 when they were either in the same team, or in relatively equal cars of rival teams meant that the wins were shared between them.

Add to this the fact that their seasons were 14 or 16 races maximum then it's fairly clear that it was more difficult for them to pile up wins.

Had either Prost or Senna had a clear no.2 in 88/89 at McLaren and not been battling each other, then they would have won a lot more races. They had the sort of advantage that Mercedes have had in recent years, but as drivers did not really the position in their teams that Hamilton has generally had and therefore were unable to rack up huge win tallies in a season.

How many races did either driver win in 1988? I can't recall off the top of my head but it is conceivable that either of them might well have won the 14 of 15 that they achieved between them had they had a Patrese or Boutsen as teammate.

I guess you could argue that once Prost moved on, Senna & Berger were considered to have equal status like Hamilton and Bottas do now. (Albeit Senna and Prost were still taking wins off each other!)
I have never believed this to be contractually true in either era. If Berger and VB were seriously on equal performance terms with their illustrious teammates, they would have been replaced considering their relatively poor records against them!

A no.2 is usually fairly obvious to spot even if teams and drivers say otherwise! I certainly do not see the Merc team managing in same way as they were when Rosberg was there.

This brings me on to the Schumi Ferrari era which clearly operated a no.1 and no.2, although Schu often tried to deny this and his teammates were discouraged from discussing it! As we know this was during a period of dominance with only a couple of seasons throwing up any serious competition

In this case, at no time did Schu have any inter team competition to divide the win ratios over a 16, 17, 18 round season. It may well be that had Ferrari had another lead driver in there, Schu would not have got anywhere near 91 wins.

So Senna and Prost denied each other greater win tallies.

Schumacher only had to finish races a lot of the time and he would win.

Hamilton had stiff inner team competition earlier in his career but has not faced much competition for wins internally since 2016. I don't see that changing in the next 3 years either.

[S griffin]

I think this is open to discussion. The best drivers always tend to get the best cars eventually

For me, Prost’s potential was there from the start and then he went on to being the best of his era, even if the move to Ferrari was a bad move in hindsight. Senna showed enough of his talent to challenge Prost and his all round ability helped him get the better of him several times. It’s a shame what happened between them at McLaren, I actually think Senna might have been better off at Ferrari. At least Prost after being sacked by Ferrari ended up at Williams, which I feel was the best thing to happen to him. Him and Frank and Patrick were a great combo to have. Still, we should be blessed we had the Prost and Senna battles, it got over-tense at times and some things didn’t quite work out for either, but it’s still great to look back

The great thing about those days is that you didn’t have a long haul season, so each race meant more IMHO. And it was always great to watch those two going for it each and every race

Of course we’ve gone through the what ifs and it is fascinating to think how different things if say Senna had been in the Ferrari and Prost had ended up with Williams earlier. That said both always seemed to choose where they ended up well, at least most of the time, so that’s another strength. There were others who could challenge them on their day, like Patrese and some who could be superb on occasion, but not always, the Boutsens, the Nanninis etc. But who knows how different 88 would have been if they weren’t in the same team. Would they have won more or less. With Prost, he could handle anyone and Senna was always quick enough to threaten or beat anyone

Senna got a bit lucky Prost left when he did. Berger was good, but no megastar, but it was also clear it was probably better for Alain and Ayrton if they were in different teams.

Although Senna no doubt had the McLaren team around him when Prost left, that was always natural with the results he got. How much did it affect Berger? For me it’s a moot point, because Berger, as good as he was, was no Senna or Prost. Even with equal status, I think Senna had him beaten. That’s why Senna won three titles, he used all the ingredients at his disposal to good use. And I fail to see how Merc don’t keep things equal between their two drivers. For me there’s no reason not to. Hamilton may be on top, but Bottas could have done a lot better if he asserted himself more, instead of that he has lost a great opportunity to really show what he can do. For me I don’t think some top teams care too much about the other driver not matching his superstar team mate. The important thing is they have one driver capable of taking the drivers title and the other one who can be a backup and collect points towards the constructors

As for Schumacher, I think, big talent though he was, I think his refusal to play ball with his team mate has let his achievements down a bit, but again, it might not have made too much of a difference. But we never really saw him with a superstar team mate when he was winning races and titles, so that will always be a question mark, but still, you have to admire him for the way he got things done.

It’s a shame Rosberg retired when he did, would have liked to have seen go on for one more, but he would probably have ended up Ferrari or somewhere. For me Rosberg’s talent was never in doubt in 2016 and no doubt he deserved that title over Hamilton, in fact they both did enough to warrant the title that year. Of course Lewis has been incredibly lucky these past few years, he’s in a great team and they value him highly. Just a shame we haven’t seen Bottas challenge him, it would be nice to see him have someone make him work for it more, it would be much better if we could have that competition back

That said, it will be interesting where Lewis goes from him. Will he stay at Merc or will he leave? Still nothing confirmed for next year. He could be with another team, although I’m not sure where. We just have to wait to see if he will continue in F1 or decide to find something else to do with his life

[chillibowl]

i hear that, but the counter argument is that more races, the longer the season the harder it becomes....not easier.

by way of example, if we went to the 'Future GP' thread the overwhelming consensus would be that teams (which includes drivers) will struggle with the requirements of a longer season. rather, the more races the greater the challenge for those involved.

in this thread, however, more races is treated as a benefit.

i suspect, if you asked any athlete in any major sport and they would all agree, that while there is no doubt a calendar sweet spot, any additional game/event/season past that point gets progressively harder. at the least there is a toll on mental and physical health that must be accounted for.

is it possible that these 'extra' wins LH gets because of the longer seasons are also the ones which are harder to come by?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Hamilton had stiff inner team competition earlier in his career but has not faced much competition for wins internally since 2016. I don't see that changing in the next 3 years either.

i would argue LH has the stiffest competition of them all...every time he gets into that cockpit he has to race against his own massive ego!

said in jest but expectations for success is in and of itself an obstacle most do not overcome. and to do it while maintaining consistency, maybe even improving, is surely a rare attribute among even the very best sports people.

on its own that is not enough to say he is the GOAT but it adds to the defense!

[S griffin]

I am sure the competition is good. Lewis has plenty of other drivers who can give him run for his money on their day or more. Like Raikkonen, Leclerc and on occasion Bottas. Lewis has his faults and he’s no way perfect, but he is doing enough to keep Merc on top and he has won enough to keep himself on top

I think he has shown enough to show why he’s worthy of the best car, even if he was only winning on occasion. He’s well settled in the team and has the backing of them no matter what. As well as the fact he always manages to find the right setup on a car and how to develop a car too. And he will keep doing that for some time, he’s got that racing brain in him, sharp as ever.

Even if he has won a lot more races than he could or should have expected to win, you can’t deny he has done more than enough to warrant his place in the best car and the best team and making sure he gets the job done whatever the weekend or the circumstances. That’s great for him

[john ruston]

Long time since Raikkonen has given him a run for his money and usually with help of Spa officials!
Over the years you could have given Alonso and a certain young Dutchman as people who are in that upper tier.

Lewis H’s big advantage is that he can work out a problem then drive round it
A good example was Turkey.

If they all had Mercedes it is reasonable to speculate that the Stevenage hero would win the majority of races in the past twelve years
This also applies to Fangio,Clark,Moss,Senna and Scuemacher.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

I don't get anymore how fans, media allow themselves to deify drivers. That Andrew Benson article is hopeless. Guys like him and Joe Saward are terrible. Cheerleaders that look at racing with no depth.

Hamilton's career before having the dominant MB from 2014.

119 races in 7 seasons
22 wins
32 PP
13 fl

Damon Hill is an often diminished driver. Here are his stats.

115 races in 8 seasons
22 wins
20 pp
19 fl

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Oh yeah, and they also had one championship a piece.

[crmalcolm]

So what you are saying with your comparison to Damon Hill is:

Both drivers had a comparable record in their first 120-ish races. After which Damon retired admitting that the mental pressure of competing was too much to continue, whereas Lewis continued to develop a career that has resulted in a record many consider may make him the GOAT?

[Akrapovic]

lol. So the only way to make Lewis look worse is to stop counting the majority of his years? Can we do the same for Schumacher? Pretend the Ferrari years didn't exist?

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Hamilton had stiff inner team competition earlier in his career but has not faced much competition for wins internally since 2016. I don't see that changing in the next 3 years either.

He has faced more competition than most champs within his teams to be fair, definitely in the modern era.

Other than Kovalainen they have all been either very good (Bottas) or better. Alonso, by comparison, had a run of Marques (OK, not totally fair to include him), Trulli and Fisichella prior to 2007, before slinking away to take on the mighty Piquet Jr, post-head injury Massa and a comatose Raikkonen. His McLaren return was much better in fairness, but somewhat masked by events. But we don't much doubt the quality of him as a driver and rightly so.

Quite frankly, after 2007, Hamilton could have had any teammate and his reputation would be undimmed. He had already matched the then best on a level playing field in his first season, which just blows my mind every time I think about it.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

So what you are saying with your comparison to Damon Hill is:

Both drivers had a comparable record in their first 120-ish races. After which Damon retired admitting that the mental pressure of competing was too much to continue, whereas Lewis continued to develop a career that has resulted in a record many consider may make him the GOAT?

No.

I'm recognising that prior to a fundamental shift in the change of regulations that massively favoured MB, Hamilton had a career comparable to what WC drivers typically experience (fluctuation of their own form and their team, relative competitiveness of their car and its strengths and weaknesses). The cars Hamilton raced from 07-13 is closer to what Hill had raced during the 90s.

Hill has big wins in the wet, sensational PP, huge performances in cars outside the top 3 in the wcc.

Hill is a diminished driver and Hamilton is deified.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

lol. So the only way to make Lewis look worse

Who said anything about making Hamilton look worse?

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

is to stop counting the majority of his years?

Nope.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Can we do the same for Schumacher? Pretend the Ferrari years didn't exist?

If you want.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

Quite frankly, after 2007, Hamilton could have had any teammate and his reputation would be undimmed. He had already matched the then best on a level playing field in his first season, which just blows my mind every time I think about it.

Talent + comprehensive driver training program + changing F1/motorsport industry = Lewis Hamilton's 2007.

I've found there are numerous comparisons of Hamilton's 07 season with Mansell's 86 season. F1/motor racing as an industry was different.

[Adam43]

Go Damon!

[Greem]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Hill is a diminished driver

That word you keep saying...

Who's doing that? Hill's WDC remains one of my favourite achievements in F1. A bit like Rosberg Jr, he had to dig stupendously deep and lay his entire soul on the line to win it.

It is of course worth mentioning that any comparison with Mercedes should mention that the Williams Hill won in was far and away the best car that year, as it had been for some time. Does that diminish Hill's achievement? No, because he had to beat his teammate in an identical car across the whole season - his teammate who went on to win the WDC the following year.

So - who exactly is describing Hill as a diminished driver?

[S griffin]

Some drivers just get the breaks, but some don't always make the most of those breaks

For me I would say Damon Hill was a bit of an old school driver, raced for the love of the sport and he did well to take the title. Hill and Rosberg Jr are two you would not have necessarily thought of as obvious world champions, yet they did it, despite better opposition. Fair play to them both

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Who said anything about making Hamilton look worse?

Well, you seem to have a clear desire to big up others such as Hill and Mansell (no matter how good they were in their time) whose achievements just as clearly come nowhere near Hamilton's, whose success you put down almost entirely to the dominance of Mercedes. You're entitled to your opinion (of course) but it is becoming rather tedious, if I may say....

[S griffin]

I wouldn’t necessarily big up Hill, although he deserved his title. Mansell I always feel isn’t given his dues. He probably had a few more titles in him, but didn’t always make the right decisions. Even if he didn’t win as many titles as Hamilton, he was a great driver who on his day could beat Prost and others.

Hamilton has been lucky he has had the best car. It could have been a very different story, but he still has done enough to win the titles, so that’s that. That’s my two cents

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Well, you seem to have a clear desire to big up others such as Hill and Mansell (no matter how good they were in their time) whose achievements just as clearly come nowhere near Hamilton's, whose success you put down almost entirely to the dominance of Mercedes. You're entitled to your opinion (of course) but it is becoming rather tedious, if I may say....

This.

I don't like it when people heavily imply something, but deliberately skirt around actually writing it. It's very obvious what is being said, but gives the OP the ability to use the "where did I say this?" get out clause, as if he meant nothing by the comments.

[Peter Mallett]

I dunno, Phil Hill had to beat some stiff opposition, including; Brabham, Clark, Hill G, Moss et al, to achieve his WDC.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I don't like it when people heavily imply something, but deliberately skirt around actually writing it. It's very obvious what is being said, but gives the OP the ability to use the "where did I say this?" get out clause, as if he meant nothing by the comments.

I do see that going on.

Richard

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I dunno, Phil Hill had to beat some stiff opposition, including; Brabham, Clark, Hill G, Moss et al, to achieve his WDC.

Congratulations, you win