planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:58 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1199
I think he's done enough. I think all he could now is either further cement that view or weaken it by staying on past his sell-by date. You can't ignore some things like

Going up against other World Champs
Winning even when car "shouldn't"
Winning from almost anywhere on the grid
Overcoming WDC deficits
Impressive stats across almost all categories
Racecraft
Proven wet-weather skills

What more do you want? If you were to ask anyone on what basis they have chosen a driver on their list, you can nearly always apply that criteria to Hamilton.

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 6:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3987
I don't look at off track behaviour when choosing who I think were the greatest drivers in F1. Driving skill is what I look at.

Now, choosing my favourite drivers is a different thing and probably a different thread.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 6:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 2891
Johnson wrote:

Jolyon Palmer is a great role model off the track, lived in England too, just down the road from me.

Isle of man is a tax haven by the way. Mansell lived there for the duration of F1 his career before moving to another British tax haven, Jersey. Once his big pay days stopped, he moved back to the mainland.



Not that I hold it against him, but he lives in Britain because daddy's millions and business's are in Britain. It always helps standing by your principles when you have somebody else's millions propping you up.

Jonathan is considered to be the most important man in British Motorsport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3506
shoot999 wrote:
Johnson wrote:

Jolyon Palmer is a great role model off the track, lived in England too, just down the road from me.

Isle of man is a tax haven by the way. Mansell lived there for the duration of F1 his career before moving to another British tax haven, Jersey. Once his big pay days stopped, he moved back to the mainland.



Not that I hold it against him, but he lives in Britain because daddy's millions and business's are in Britain. It always helps standing by your principles when you have somebody else's millions propping you up.

Jonathan is considered to be the most important man in British Motorsport.

I'm fairly certain that Johnson's point was not about commending Jolyon Palmer's principles and suggesting he's a potential GOAT.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:40 am
Posts: 164
Race for 2 more years and keep averaging his poles and wins per season and he'll own most of the records.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 2310
Vettel Fan wrote:
Race for 2 more years and keep averaging his poles and wins per season and he'll own most of the records.


Given how stats-centric so much of sports fandom is these days, even for F1 fans, that'll be enough for many.

A lot of debates on sports forums about greatness devolve into the question of pure numbers which then replace context as though in the end the cold hard statistics is the bottom line.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2114
Location: Miami, Florida
DOLOMITE wrote:
I think he's done enough. I think all he could now is either further cement that view or weaken it by staying on past his sell-by date. You can't ignore some things like

Going up against other World Champs
Winning even when car "shouldn't"
Winning from almost anywhere on the grid
Overcoming WDC deficits
Impressive stats across almost all categories
Racecraft
Proven wet-weather skills

What more do you want? If you were to ask anyone on what basis they have chosen a driver on their list, you can nearly always apply that criteria to Hamilton.

Here, HERE!!!

Some people cannot look past their own personal misconceived notions. I myself have stated how much I disliked Hamilton for that very reason until the moment I realized I had no reason to feel that way about the kid.
From that moment on I made it a point to watch every race objectively without bias toward any driver and pay attention to all the battles throughout the field, and by doing so, several things became quite clear…

Vettel is a wonder kid, Alonso is a driver who is better than his 2 titles, Massa is also a special driver, Kimi has a sensational sense of humor, Williams is sadly lost, Red Bull didn't come to play games, Horner and Marko are whiney cry babies whom lack tact and will gladly accept all the praise for their successes but will quickly point the finger at others when they don't fare well, Force India is the most underrated team, Toro Rosso is there to help Red Bull's cause, Wolff weaseled his way into Mercedes and he and Lauda ousted Brawn, Ferrari are more unstable than at any other time in their history with all the musical chairs being played season after season, Rosberg went form above average to an absolute beast of a driver when paired against Hamilton, USF1 might have done better than Haas, the younger generations entering the sport are better each year, and through all this and more, Hamilton has won in every single car and season he's been in F1 and has consistently been better than everyone else, including Vettel AND Alonso. When the Red Bull was dominant during their 4-year period, the ONLY one who was able to challenge for and steal Poles from them and Vettel was Hamilton, and often in a slower, more difficult to drive car and completely from out of nowhere.

I can remember watching Vettel and Hamilton battling for Pole and Seb would lay down ridiculous laps that were the fastest of the weekend by considerable margins, only to see Hamilton zip across the line even quicker, leaving Vettel scratching his head because he felt his time was untouchable. That takes a special driver and Hamilton really is special. People can talk all they want about Verstappen being the best in F1 right now but that is total fandom speaking because in the same car Hamilton would beat ANYONE in the sport, including Verstappen. Alonso was arguably the 2nd best driver to Hamilton since 2008 and I don't think anyone in their right mind would dare to even think Verstappen could beat Alonso.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3987
I really am struggling with this thread because I can't fathom why anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on F1 would not call him an all time great.

And no, I am not and never have been a fan of his. You just can't hide the fact that he's achieved so much and driven so many excellent races, even when he hasn't won.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2419
Asphalt_World wrote:
I really am struggling with this thread because I can't fathom why anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on F1 would not call him an all time great.

And no, I am not and never have been a fan of his. You just can't hide the fact that he's achieved so much and driven so many excellent races, even when he hasn't won.


Exactly this. Hamilton is an all-time great, not even up for debate. He is there - Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton. His name is not out of place. Try and argue but all arguments against it now just look stupid. Example: Todd saying "Verstappen is greater" LOL. It's over.

The only question now is "is he the GOAT", which nobody is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7143
Location: Michigan, USA
Asphalt_World wrote:
I really am struggling with this thread because I can't fathom why anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on F1 would not call him an all time great.

And no, I am not and never have been a fan of his. You just can't hide the fact that he's achieved so much and driven so many excellent races, even when he hasn't won.

This thread is from 2014. It was a much more open question back then.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 2310
FormulaFun wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
I really am struggling with this thread because I can't fathom why anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on F1 would not call him an all time great.

And no, I am not and never have been a fan of his. You just can't hide the fact that he's achieved so much and driven so many excellent races, even when he hasn't won.


Exactly this. Hamilton is an all-time great, not even up for debate. He is there - Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton. His name is not out of place. Try and argue but all arguments against it now just look stupid. Example: Todd saying "Verstappen is greater" LOL. It's over.

The only question now is "is he the GOAT", which nobody is.



Is he the BOHE (best of his era)? Or is it Fernando Alonso...

How can one be the best of all-time if it's not even clear one is the best of their era!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15603
Invade wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
I really am struggling with this thread because I can't fathom why anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on F1 would not call him an all time great.

And no, I am not and never have been a fan of his. You just can't hide the fact that he's achieved so much and driven so many excellent races, even when he hasn't won.


Exactly this. Hamilton is an all-time great, not even up for debate. He is there - Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton. His name is not out of place. Try and argue but all arguments against it now just look stupid. Example: Todd saying "Verstappen is greater" LOL. It's over.

The only question now is "is he the GOAT", which nobody is.



Is he the BOHE (best of his era)? Or is it Fernando Alonso...

How can one be the best of all-time if it's not even clear one is the best of their era!


The only drivers who have been clearly the best of their eras is Clark, Stewart, Lauda and Schumacher.

And in the case of the first 3 that's only because of the very short careers at the time. Had Clark not died he'd have competed with Stewart and had Stewart not retired young he would have competed with Lauda.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 2891
Invade wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
I really am struggling with this thread because I can't fathom why anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on F1 would not call him an all time great.

And no, I am not and never have been a fan of his. You just can't hide the fact that he's achieved so much and driven so many excellent races, even when he hasn't won.


Exactly this. Hamilton is an all-time great, not even up for debate. He is there - Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton. His name is not out of place. Try and argue but all arguments against it now just look stupid. Example: Todd saying "Verstappen is greater" LOL. It's over.

The only question now is "is he the GOAT", which nobody is.



Is he the BOHE (best of his era)? Or is it Fernando Alonso...

How can one be the best of all-time if it's not even clear one is the best of their era!


Because when people look back over the greats I think in most cases 'this is what he achieved' will always trump 'this is what he could have achieved'?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 2310
shoot999 wrote:
Invade wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
I really am struggling with this thread because I can't fathom why anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on F1 would not call him an all time great.

And no, I am not and never have been a fan of his. You just can't hide the fact that he's achieved so much and driven so many excellent races, even when he hasn't won.


Exactly this. Hamilton is an all-time great, not even up for debate. He is there - Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton. His name is not out of place. Try and argue but all arguments against it now just look stupid. Example: Todd saying "Verstappen is greater" LOL. It's over.

The only question now is "is he the GOAT", which nobody is.



Is he the BOHE (best of his era)? Or is it Fernando Alonso...

How can one be the best of all-time if it's not even clear one is the best of their era!


Because when people look back over the greats I think in most cases 'this is what he achieved' will always trump 'this is what he could have achieved'?



Ya might think so, but people make all sorts of allowances for Formula 1. Some people are prone to concretising their opinions according to a short frame of proof which can't be usurped no matter how many additional Championships might be won... *shifty eyebrows*


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 2891
Invade wrote:
shoot999 wrote:
Invade wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
I really am struggling with this thread because I can't fathom why anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on F1 would not call him an all time great.

And no, I am not and never have been a fan of his. You just can't hide the fact that he's achieved so much and driven so many excellent races, even when he hasn't won.


Exactly this. Hamilton is an all-time great, not even up for debate. He is there - Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton. His name is not out of place. Try and argue but all arguments against it now just look stupid. Example: Todd saying "Verstappen is greater" LOL. It's over.

The only question now is "is he the GOAT", which nobody is.



Is he the BOHE (best of his era)? Or is it Fernando Alonso...

How can one be the best of all-time if it's not even clear one is the best of their era!


Because when people look back over the greats I think in most cases 'this is what he achieved' will always trump 'this is what he could have achieved'?



Ya might think so, but people make all sorts of allowances for Formula 1. Some people are prone to concretising their opinions according to a short frame of proof which can't be usurped no matter how many additional Championships might be won... *shifty eyebrows*


Which is understandable when you have invested so much into supporting one individual. But as your driver moves on you move on; to another driver , then another driver. Time and distance lets you take a more considered view. A few years ago this place was full of those arguing Vettel was if not the GOAT, at least the GOAT in waiting. Where are all those championing Vettel now? (Probably arguing that Max is the best thing since sliced bread actually :D ) My chosen GOAT has seen off a lot of the competition over the years, but I do recognise that one day even he maybe usurped.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2419
Invade wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
I really am struggling with this thread because I can't fathom why anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on F1 would not call him an all time great.

And no, I am not and never have been a fan of his. You just can't hide the fact that he's achieved so much and driven so many excellent races, even when he hasn't won.


Exactly this. Hamilton is an all-time great, not even up for debate. He is there - Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton. His name is not out of place. Try and argue but all arguments against it now just look stupid. Example: Todd saying "Verstappen is greater" LOL. It's over.

The only question now is "is he the GOAT", which nobody is.



Is he the BOHE (best of his era)? Or is it Fernando Alonso...

How can one be the best of all-time if it's not even clear one is the best of their era!

What argument exactly can one put forward that Alonso was better than Hamilton that doesnt consist entirely of personal preference? Everything objective says Hamilton is ahead? If it wasn't for Hamilton Alonso would likely be a 4x WDC (this is very likely) but he's not, he's 2x WDC because Hamilton entered the sport in 2007

Even so the premise youre putting forward is simply incorrect. You don't have to be a mile ahead of your era to be a great. Were Senna or Prost the clear best of their era? Nope. Are they all time greats? Yup.

Unless you believe Alonso was nothing special


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15603
FormulaFun wrote:
Invade wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
I really am struggling with this thread because I can't fathom why anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on F1 would not call him an all time great.

And no, I am not and never have been a fan of his. You just can't hide the fact that he's achieved so much and driven so many excellent races, even when he hasn't won.


Exactly this. Hamilton is an all-time great, not even up for debate. He is there - Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton. His name is not out of place. Try and argue but all arguments against it now just look stupid. Example: Todd saying "Verstappen is greater" LOL. It's over.

The only question now is "is he the GOAT", which nobody is.



Is he the BOHE (best of his era)? Or is it Fernando Alonso...

How can one be the best of all-time if it's not even clear one is the best of their era!

What argument exactly can one put forward that Alonso was better than Hamilton that doesnt consist entirely of personal preference? Everything objective says Hamilton is ahead? If it wasn't for Hamilton Alonso would likely be a 4x WDC (this is very likely) but he's not, he's 2x WDC because Hamilton entered the sport in 2007

Even so the premise youre putting forward is simply incorrect. You don't have to be a mile ahead of your era to be a great. Were Senna or Prost the clear best of their era? Nope. Are they all time greats? Yup.

Unless you believe Alonso was nothing special


Aside from team mate comparisons when discussing which F1 driver was better it is all subjective. There is no objectivity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
shoot999 wrote:
Invade wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
I really am struggling with this thread because I can't fathom why anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on F1 would not call him an all time great.

And no, I am not and never have been a fan of his. You just can't hide the fact that he's achieved so much and driven so many excellent races, even when he hasn't won.


Exactly this. Hamilton is an all-time great, not even up for debate. He is there - Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton. His name is not out of place. Try and argue but all arguments against it now just look stupid. Example: Todd saying "Verstappen is greater" LOL. It's over.

The only question now is "is he the GOAT", which nobody is.



Is he the BOHE (best of his era)? Or is it Fernando Alonso...

How can one be the best of all-time if it's not even clear one is the best of their era!


Because when people look back over the greats I think in most cases 'this is what he achieved' will always trump 'this is what he could have achieved'?

Indeed achievement will always have a higher standing than couldha, wouldha, shouldha.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15603
pokerman wrote:
shoot999 wrote:
Invade wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
I really am struggling with this thread because I can't fathom why anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on F1 would not call him an all time great.

And no, I am not and never have been a fan of his. You just can't hide the fact that he's achieved so much and driven so many excellent races, even when he hasn't won.


Exactly this. Hamilton is an all-time great, not even up for debate. He is there - Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton. His name is not out of place. Try and argue but all arguments against it now just look stupid. Example: Todd saying "Verstappen is greater" LOL. It's over.

The only question now is "is he the GOAT", which nobody is.



Is he the BOHE (best of his era)? Or is it Fernando Alonso...

How can one be the best of all-time if it's not even clear one is the best of their era!


Because when people look back over the greats I think in most cases 'this is what he achieved' will always trump 'this is what he could have achieved'?

Indeed achievement will always have a higher standing than couldha, wouldha, shouldha.


For greatest yes. For best no.

Hamilton not passing Glock wouldn't make Massa a better formula 1 driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
FormulaFun wrote:
Invade wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
I really am struggling with this thread because I can't fathom why anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on F1 would not call him an all time great.

And no, I am not and never have been a fan of his. You just can't hide the fact that he's achieved so much and driven so many excellent races, even when he hasn't won.


Exactly this. Hamilton is an all-time great, not even up for debate. He is there - Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton. His name is not out of place. Try and argue but all arguments against it now just look stupid. Example: Todd saying "Verstappen is greater" LOL. It's over.

The only question now is "is he the GOAT", which nobody is.



Is he the BOHE (best of his era)? Or is it Fernando Alonso...

How can one be the best of all-time if it's not even clear one is the best of their era!

What argument exactly can one put forward that Alonso was better than Hamilton that doesnt consist entirely of personal preference? Everything objective says Hamilton is ahead? If it wasn't for Hamilton Alonso would likely be a 4x WDC (this is very likely) but he's not, he's 2x WDC because Hamilton entered the sport in 2007

Even so the premise youre putting forward is simply incorrect. You don't have to be a mile ahead of your era to be a great. Were Senna or Prost the clear best of their era? Nope. Are they all time greats? Yup.

Unless you believe Alonso was nothing special

Indeed the main arguments for Alonso can only really be personal opinion?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2419
mikeyg123 wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Invade wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
I really am struggling with this thread because I can't fathom why anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on F1 would not call him an all time great.

And no, I am not and never have been a fan of his. You just can't hide the fact that he's achieved so much and driven so many excellent races, even when he hasn't won.


Exactly this. Hamilton is an all-time great, not even up for debate. He is there - Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton. His name is not out of place. Try and argue but all arguments against it now just look stupid. Example: Todd saying "Verstappen is greater" LOL. It's over.

The only question now is "is he the GOAT", which nobody is.



Is he the BOHE (best of his era)? Or is it Fernando Alonso...

How can one be the best of all-time if it's not even clear one is the best of their era!

What argument exactly can one put forward that Alonso was better than Hamilton that doesnt consist entirely of personal preference? Everything objective says Hamilton is ahead? If it wasn't for Hamilton Alonso would likely be a 4x WDC (this is very likely) but he's not, he's 2x WDC because Hamilton entered the sport in 2007

Even so the premise youre putting forward is simply incorrect. You don't have to be a mile ahead of your era to be a great. Were Senna or Prost the clear best of their era? Nope. Are they all time greats? Yup.

Unless you believe Alonso was nothing special


Aside from team mate comparisons when discussing which F1 driver was better it is all subjective. There is no objectivity.


Ofcourse there is objectivity, Alonso was objectively better than Massa would you not agree?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15603
FormulaFun wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Invade wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:

Exactly this. Hamilton is an all-time great, not even up for debate. He is there - Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton. His name is not out of place. Try and argue but all arguments against it now just look stupid. Example: Todd saying "Verstappen is greater" LOL. It's over.

The only question now is "is he the GOAT", which nobody is.



Is he the BOHE (best of his era)? Or is it Fernando Alonso...

How can one be the best of all-time if it's not even clear one is the best of their era!

What argument exactly can one put forward that Alonso was better than Hamilton that doesnt consist entirely of personal preference? Everything objective says Hamilton is ahead? If it wasn't for Hamilton Alonso would likely be a 4x WDC (this is very likely) but he's not, he's 2x WDC because Hamilton entered the sport in 2007

Even so the premise youre putting forward is simply incorrect. You don't have to be a mile ahead of your era to be a great. Were Senna or Prost the clear best of their era? Nope. Are they all time greats? Yup.

Unless you believe Alonso was nothing special


Aside from team mate comparisons when discussing which F1 driver was better it is all subjective. There is no objectivity.


Ofcourse there is objectivity, Alonso was objectively better than Massa would you not agree?


I said "aside from team mate comparisons"

I think you could objectively say Alonso was better than Massa 2010-2013.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
shoot999 wrote:
Invade wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Exactly this. Hamilton is an all-time great, not even up for debate. He is there - Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton. His name is not out of place. Try and argue but all arguments against it now just look stupid. Example: Todd saying "Verstappen is greater" LOL. It's over.

The only question now is "is he the GOAT", which nobody is.



Is he the BOHE (best of his era)? Or is it Fernando Alonso...

How can one be the best of all-time if it's not even clear one is the best of their era!


Because when people look back over the greats I think in most cases 'this is what he achieved' will always trump 'this is what he could have achieved'?

Indeed achievement will always have a higher standing than couldha, wouldha, shouldha.


For greatest yes. For best no.

Hamilton not passing Glock wouldn't make Massa a better formula 1 driver.

No like it didn't with either Button or Rosberg, but we are talking more in the realms of repeated success that can't be ignored.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2419
mikeyg123 wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Invade wrote:

Is he the BOHE (best of his era)? Or is it Fernando Alonso...

How can one be the best of all-time if it's not even clear one is the best of their era!

What argument exactly can one put forward that Alonso was better than Hamilton that doesnt consist entirely of personal preference? Everything objective says Hamilton is ahead? If it wasn't for Hamilton Alonso would likely be a 4x WDC (this is very likely) but he's not, he's 2x WDC because Hamilton entered the sport in 2007

Even so the premise youre putting forward is simply incorrect. You don't have to be a mile ahead of your era to be a great. Were Senna or Prost the clear best of their era? Nope. Are they all time greats? Yup.

Unless you believe Alonso was nothing special


Aside from team mate comparisons when discussing which F1 driver was better it is all subjective. There is no objectivity.


Ofcourse there is objectivity, Alonso was objectively better than Massa would you not agree?


I said "aside from team mate comparisons"

I think you could objectively say Alonso was better than Massa 2010-2013.


Can you objectively say that Alonso was better than, I dunno, Pedro Dela Rosa ? Or Kimi even

Can you objectively say that Hamilton now is a better driver than he was in 2007?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15603
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
shoot999 wrote:
Invade wrote:


Is he the BOHE (best of his era)? Or is it Fernando Alonso...

How can one be the best of all-time if it's not even clear one is the best of their era!


Because when people look back over the greats I think in most cases 'this is what he achieved' will always trump 'this is what he could have achieved'?

Indeed achievement will always have a higher standing than couldha, wouldha, shouldha.


For greatest yes. For best no.

Hamilton not passing Glock wouldn't make Massa a better formula 1 driver.

No like it didn't with either Button or Rosberg, but we are talking more in the realms of repeated success that can't be ignored.


Even then though in terms of better I don't think success is much of a factor. If Hamilton's Merc move not worked out and he was stuck on 1 WDC he wouldn't necessarily be a worst driver of F1 cars. Just in a different circumstance.

Greatness is different.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6698
Invade wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
I really am struggling with this thread because I can't fathom why anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on F1 would not call him an all time great.

And no, I am not and never have been a fan of his. You just can't hide the fact that he's achieved so much and driven so many excellent races, even when he hasn't won.


Exactly this. Hamilton is an all-time great, not even up for debate. He is there - Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton. His name is not out of place. Try and argue but all arguments against it now just look stupid. Example: Todd saying "Verstappen is greater" LOL. It's over.

The only question now is "is he the GOAT", which nobody is.



Is he the BOHE (best of his era)? Or is it Fernando Alonso...

How can one be the best of all-time if it's not even clear one is the best of their era!

To claim Hamilton is not the best of his era is similar to claiming that Schumacher was not the best of his. I could say that I think Hakkinen was better. Prove me wrong. Hakkinen beat his teammates and he won titles. He and Schumacher were never teammates so you cannot claim that Michael was better in identical machinery. Ironically Hamilton and Alonso were teammates and, despite Lewis being a rookie and Fernando having #1 status to start the season, Lewis beat him.

Alonso had a great career but not nearly as great as his supporters would have you think it woulda, coulda, shoulda been.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2419
sandman1347 wrote:
Invade wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
I really am struggling with this thread because I can't fathom why anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on F1 would not call him an all time great.

And no, I am not and never have been a fan of his. You just can't hide the fact that he's achieved so much and driven so many excellent races, even when he hasn't won.


Exactly this. Hamilton is an all-time great, not even up for debate. He is there - Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton. His name is not out of place. Try and argue but all arguments against it now just look stupid. Example: Todd saying "Verstappen is greater" LOL. It's over.

The only question now is "is he the GOAT", which nobody is.



Is he the BOHE (best of his era)? Or is it Fernando Alonso...

How can one be the best of all-time if it's not even clear one is the best of their era!

To claim Hamilton is not the best of his era is similar to claiming that Schumacher was not the best of his. I could say that I think Hakkinen was better. Prove me wrong. Hakkinen beat his teammates and he won titles. He and Schumacher were never teammates so you cannot claim that Michael was better in identical machinery. Ironically Hamilton and Alonso were teammates and, despite Lewis being a rookie and Fernando having #1 status to start the season, Lewis beat him.

Alonso had a great career but not nearly as great as his supporters would have you think it woulda, coulda, shoulda been.


Exactly,

Hakkinen is one of my favourite drivers of all time and Schumacher is one of my most hated yet I wouldn't try to argue that Hakkinen was the best of his era


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
shoot999 wrote:
Because when people look back over the greats I think in most cases 'this is what he achieved' will always trump 'this is what he could have achieved'?

Indeed achievement will always have a higher standing than couldha, wouldha, shouldha.


For greatest yes. For best no.

Hamilton not passing Glock wouldn't make Massa a better formula 1 driver.

No like it didn't with either Button or Rosberg, but we are talking more in the realms of repeated success that can't be ignored.


Even then though in terms of better I don't think success is much of a factor. If Hamilton's Merc move not worked out and he was stuck on 1 WDC he wouldn't necessarily be a worst driver of F1 cars. Just in a different circumstance.

Greatness is different.

Schumacher didn't start winning titles for Ferrari until the point they gave him the best car, he lost in 2006 in the equal best car but we still presume him to be the best driver and similar can be said for all the drivers, Senna had to go to McLaren.

The best drivers position themselves into the best cars and then that's when history gets made, you don't know that Hamilton would not have positioned himself at some point into the Mercedes car?

Similar with Verstappen at some point he will position himself into the best car if Red Bull don't deliver, it's what happens and not what might have happened, It's Hamilton's standing in the sport that enabled him to get were he needed to go.

I know you like to champion Alonso but the truth is that the top teams don't see him as being better than the likes of Hamilton, if Hamilton can't be perceived as a great then none of the present drivers can.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15603
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Indeed achievement will always have a higher standing than couldha, wouldha, shouldha.


For greatest yes. For best no.

Hamilton not passing Glock wouldn't make Massa a better formula 1 driver.

No like it didn't with either Button or Rosberg, but we are talking more in the realms of repeated success that can't be ignored.


Even then though in terms of better I don't think success is much of a factor. If Hamilton's Merc move not worked out and he was stuck on 1 WDC he wouldn't necessarily be a worst driver of F1 cars. Just in a different circumstance.

Greatness is different.

Schumacher didn't start winning titles for Ferrari until the point they gave him the best car, he lost in 2006 in the equal best car but we still presume him to be the best driver and similar can be said for all the drivers, Senna had to go to McLaren.

The best drivers position themselves into the best cars and then that's when history gets made, you don't know that Hamilton would not have positioned himself at some point into the Mercedes car?

Similar with Verstappen at some point he will position himself into the best car if Red Bull don't deliver, it's what happens and not what might have happened, It's Hamilton's standing in the sport that enabled him to get were he needed to go.

I know you like to champion Alonso but the truth is that the top teams don't see him as being better than the likes of Hamilton, if Hamilton can't be perceived as a great then none of the present drivers can.


I think Hamilton is a great.

I'm saying achieving more success does not make a driver better. Therefore you can't use success on its own as an indicator of how good a driver actually is. Small differences in 2010 and 2012 could make Alonso a 4xWDC and Vettel only a 2xWDC. Neither driver would necessarily be better or worse for that though.

Or another example did Hamilton become a better driver after the Mexican Grand Prix last year than he was before it? Obviously not. A greater one perhaps.

I would agree that a level of greatness is affected by more success.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6698
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Schumacher didn't start winning titles for Ferrari until the point they gave him the best car, he lost in 2006 in the equal best car but we still presume him to be the best driver and similar can be said for all the drivers, Senna had to go to McLaren.

The best drivers position themselves into the best cars and then that's when history gets made, you don't know that Hamilton would not have positioned himself at some point into the Mercedes car?

Similar with Verstappen at some point he will position himself into the best car if Red Bull don't deliver, it's what happens and not what might have happened, It's Hamilton's standing in the sport that enabled him to get were he needed to go.

I know you like to champion Alonso but the truth is that the top teams don't see him as being better than the likes of Hamilton, if Hamilton can't be perceived as a great then none of the present drivers can.


I think Hamilton is a great.

I'm saying achieving more success does not make a driver better. Therefore you can't use success on its own as an indicator of how good a driver actually is. Small differences in 2010 and 2012 could make Alonso a 4xWDC and Vettel only a 2xWDC. Neither driver would necessarily be better or worse for that though.

Or another example did Hamilton become a better driver after the Mexican Grand Prix last year than he was before it? Obviously not. A greater one perhaps.

I would agree that a level of greatness is affected by more success.

Success is an indicator of how great a driver is. It's just not the only indicator. You also need context to put that success in perspective. What you cannot do is ignore success (or lack thereof) and treat winning races and championships as if it doesn't matter. Winning is the ultimate barometer for greatness in any sport.

Your point about Alonso in 2010 and 2012 is meaningful but not in the way you seem to think. The 2010 championship was within his grasp but he didn't pull it off. Finding a way around Petrov would have won him the title that year. Likewise, in 2012 a single race win during the second half of the season would probably have been enough to secure the title but he didn't win another race after the first half.

I'm not trying to nitpick. You can't win them all and all great drivers have had years where they have come up short but Alonso has had 5 legitimate chances to win the championship and has only pulled it off twice. The other three times, he lost by a narrow margin and in none of those scenarios did he win the last race (a fete that would have secured him those titles). So the opportunity was absolutely there for Fernando to cement himself much higher on the all-time list but he did not manage to pull it off.

Part of greatness is delivering when it matters most. When I think of Senna and what makes him great; the 1988 Japanese GP comes to mind. A race where he secured the championship over his teammate Prost by dropping down to 16th after a stall at the start and then charging through the field (including Prost) to win. Hamilton has won titles in the final round several times. In 08' there was that dramatic finish in Brazil. In 2014 he won the final race in Abu Dhabi. Same in 2016 but he ended up still losing out on the championship despite winning the race. Where was that Moment for Alonso where he came through when things went down to the wire and the pressure was high? Both of Alonso's championship seasons were cases of him building a lead in the first half of the season and then holding on to win while Raikkonen or Schumacher closed down the gap.

Was Alonso a great driver? Of course but he did not have a track record of delivering under pressure. More importantly, he did have a track record of sewing discord within the teams he raced for and putting himself before the team. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, that's a big part of what limited his success in F1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15603
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Schumacher didn't start winning titles for Ferrari until the point they gave him the best car, he lost in 2006 in the equal best car but we still presume him to be the best driver and similar can be said for all the drivers, Senna had to go to McLaren.

The best drivers position themselves into the best cars and then that's when history gets made, you don't know that Hamilton would not have positioned himself at some point into the Mercedes car?

Similar with Verstappen at some point he will position himself into the best car if Red Bull don't deliver, it's what happens and not what might have happened, It's Hamilton's standing in the sport that enabled him to get were he needed to go.

I know you like to champion Alonso but the truth is that the top teams don't see him as being better than the likes of Hamilton, if Hamilton can't be perceived as a great then none of the present drivers can.


I think Hamilton is a great.

I'm saying achieving more success does not make a driver better. Therefore you can't use success on its own as an indicator of how good a driver actually is. Small differences in 2010 and 2012 could make Alonso a 4xWDC and Vettel only a 2xWDC. Neither driver would necessarily be better or worse for that though.

Or another example did Hamilton become a better driver after the Mexican Grand Prix last year than he was before it? Obviously not. A greater one perhaps.

I would agree that a level of greatness is affected by more success.

Success is an indicator of how great a driver is. It's just not the only indicator. You also need context to put that success in perspective. What you cannot do is ignore success (or lack thereof) and treat winning races and championships as if it doesn't matter. Winning is the ultimate barometer for greatness in any sport.

Your point about Alonso in 2010 and 2012 is meaningful but not in the way you seem to think. The 2010 championship was within his grasp but he didn't pull it off. Finding a way around Petrov would have won him the title that year. Likewise, in 2012 a single race win during the second half of the season would probably have been enough to secure the title but he didn't win another race after the first half.

I'm not trying to nitpick. You can't win them all and all great drivers have had years where they have come up short but Alonso has had 5 legitimate chances to win the championship and has only pulled it off twice. The other three times, he lost by a narrow margin and in none of those scenarios did he win the last race (a fete that would have secured him those titles). So the opportunity was absolutely there for Fernando to cement himself much higher on the all-time list but he did not manage to pull it off.

Part of greatness is delivering when it matters most. When I think of Senna and what makes him great; the 1988 Japanese GP comes to mind. A race where he secured the championship over his teammate Prost by dropping down to 16th after a stall at the start and then charging through the field (including Prost) to win. Hamilton has won titles in the final round several times. In 08' there was that dramatic finish in Brazil. In 2014 he won the final race in Abu Dhabi. Same in 2016 but he ended up still losing out on the championship despite winning the race. Where was that Moment for Alonso where he came through when things went down to the wire and the pressure was high? Both of Alonso's championship seasons were cases of him building a lead in the first half of the season and then holding on to win while Raikkonen or Schumacher closed down the gap.

Was Alonso a great driver? Of course but he did not have a track record of delivering under pressure. More importantly, he did have a track record of sewing discord within the teams he raced for and putting himself before the team. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, that's a big part of what limited his success in F1.


I agree with all of that.

I'm talking about how good they are at driving F1 cars not how great they are. Success makes a driver greater but obviously does not effect how good a driver actually is.

for example Hamilton will become "greater" when he levels Schumacher championships but won't become a better driver for doing it. He won't wake up the day after clinching the championship a better F1 driver than he was the morning previous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1199
sandman1347 wrote:
Was Alonso a great driver? Of course but he did not have a track record of delivering under pressure. More importantly, he did have a track record of sewing discord within the teams he raced for and putting himself before the team. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, that's a big part of what limited his success in F1.


Really? I don't think he could have done much more in his Ferrari years and there was huge pressure/expectations there surely.

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 670
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Even then though in terms of better I don't think success is much of a factor. If Hamilton's Merc move not worked out and he was stuck on 1 WDC he wouldn't necessarily be a worst driver of F1 cars. Just in a different circumstance.

Greatness is different.

Schumacher didn't start winning titles for Ferrari until the point they gave him the best car, he lost in 2006 in the equal best car but we still presume him to be the best driver and similar can be said for all the drivers, Senna had to go to McLaren.

The best drivers position themselves into the best cars and then that's when history gets made, you don't know that Hamilton would not have positioned himself at some point into the Mercedes car?

Similar with Verstappen at some point he will position himself into the best car if Red Bull don't deliver, it's what happens and not what might have happened, It's Hamilton's standing in the sport that enabled him to get were he needed to go.

I know you like to champion Alonso but the truth is that the top teams don't see him as being better than the likes of Hamilton, if Hamilton can't be perceived as a great then none of the present drivers can.


I think Hamilton is a great.

I'm saying achieving more success does not make a driver better. Therefore you can't use success on its own as an indicator of how good a driver actually is. Small differences in 2010 and 2012 could make Alonso a 4xWDC and Vettel only a 2xWDC. Neither driver would necessarily be better or worse for that though.

Or another example did Hamilton become a better driver after the Mexican Grand Prix last year than he was before it? Obviously not. A greater one perhaps.

I would agree that a level of greatness is affected by more success.

I would have agreed with the general principle that success doesn’t make a driver or sportsmen better but giving it more thought I’m no so sure. Once you reach the very top a huge part of that success is drive and motivation, but also confidence – and winning is vital for the last one. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Vettel won 9 races in a row towards the end of his run of 4 WDCs at which point he probably felt unstoppable and was driving with complete confidence (as he had Webber and the other teams completely covered). Hamilton has certainly grown the last few seasons now that he has achieved the sort of success that he had thought may come sooner when he burst onto the scene at McLaren. I think the pressure had been mounting, and would have made the 2014 championship much more challenging then some that followed. If he hadn’t won some of those championships then maybe he would have been the driver to succumb to pressure in the battle with Vettel. The more successful you are, winning becomes more normal and allows you maximize your potential, even with a close title on the line, and I also think that success motivates these guys more, to dig deeper and keep on improving. Much like it does with the overall team like Mercedes, and Red Bull and Ferrari before during their periods of success.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
For greatest yes. For best no.

Hamilton not passing Glock wouldn't make Massa a better formula 1 driver.

No like it didn't with either Button or Rosberg, but we are talking more in the realms of repeated success that can't be ignored.


Even then though in terms of better I don't think success is much of a factor. If Hamilton's Merc move not worked out and he was stuck on 1 WDC he wouldn't necessarily be a worst driver of F1 cars. Just in a different circumstance.

Greatness is different.

Schumacher didn't start winning titles for Ferrari until the point they gave him the best car, he lost in 2006 in the equal best car but we still presume him to be the best driver and similar can be said for all the drivers, Senna had to go to McLaren.

The best drivers position themselves into the best cars and then that's when history gets made, you don't know that Hamilton would not have positioned himself at some point into the Mercedes car?

Similar with Verstappen at some point he will position himself into the best car if Red Bull don't deliver, it's what happens and not what might have happened, It's Hamilton's standing in the sport that enabled him to get were he needed to go.

I know you like to champion Alonso but the truth is that the top teams don't see him as being better than the likes of Hamilton, if Hamilton can't be perceived as a great then none of the present drivers can.


I think Hamilton is a great.

I'm saying achieving more success does not make a driver better. Therefore you can't use success on its own as an indicator of how good a driver actually is. Small differences in 2010 and 2012 could make Alonso a 4xWDC and Vettel only a 2xWDC. Neither driver would necessarily be better or worse for that though.

Or another example did Hamilton become a better driver after the Mexican Grand Prix last year than he was before it? Obviously not. A greater one perhaps.

I would agree that a level of greatness is affected by more success.

I kind of don't understand how more success doesn't do anything but make a driver seem better?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6698
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Schumacher didn't start winning titles for Ferrari until the point they gave him the best car, he lost in 2006 in the equal best car but we still presume him to be the best driver and similar can be said for all the drivers, Senna had to go to McLaren.

The best drivers position themselves into the best cars and then that's when history gets made, you don't know that Hamilton would not have positioned himself at some point into the Mercedes car?

Similar with Verstappen at some point he will position himself into the best car if Red Bull don't deliver, it's what happens and not what might have happened, It's Hamilton's standing in the sport that enabled him to get were he needed to go.

I know you like to champion Alonso but the truth is that the top teams don't see him as being better than the likes of Hamilton, if Hamilton can't be perceived as a great then none of the present drivers can.


I think Hamilton is a great.

I'm saying achieving more success does not make a driver better. Therefore you can't use success on its own as an indicator of how good a driver actually is. Small differences in 2010 and 2012 could make Alonso a 4xWDC and Vettel only a 2xWDC. Neither driver would necessarily be better or worse for that though.

Or another example did Hamilton become a better driver after the Mexican Grand Prix last year than he was before it? Obviously not. A greater one perhaps.

I would agree that a level of greatness is affected by more success.

Success is an indicator of how great a driver is. It's just not the only indicator. You also need context to put that success in perspective. What you cannot do is ignore success (or lack thereof) and treat winning races and championships as if it doesn't matter. Winning is the ultimate barometer for greatness in any sport.

Your point about Alonso in 2010 and 2012 is meaningful but not in the way you seem to think. The 2010 championship was within his grasp but he didn't pull it off. Finding a way around Petrov would have won him the title that year. Likewise, in 2012 a single race win during the second half of the season would probably have been enough to secure the title but he didn't win another race after the first half.

I'm not trying to nitpick. You can't win them all and all great drivers have had years where they have come up short but Alonso has had 5 legitimate chances to win the championship and has only pulled it off twice. The other three times, he lost by a narrow margin and in none of those scenarios did he win the last race (a fete that would have secured him those titles). So the opportunity was absolutely there for Fernando to cement himself much higher on the all-time list but he did not manage to pull it off.

Part of greatness is delivering when it matters most. When I think of Senna and what makes him great; the 1988 Japanese GP comes to mind. A race where he secured the championship over his teammate Prost by dropping down to 16th after a stall at the start and then charging through the field (including Prost) to win. Hamilton has won titles in the final round several times. In 08' there was that dramatic finish in Brazil. In 2014 he won the final race in Abu Dhabi. Same in 2016 but he ended up still losing out on the championship despite winning the race. Where was that Moment for Alonso where he came through when things went down to the wire and the pressure was high? Both of Alonso's championship seasons were cases of him building a lead in the first half of the season and then holding on to win while Raikkonen or Schumacher closed down the gap.

Was Alonso a great driver? Of course but he did not have a track record of delivering under pressure. More importantly, he did have a track record of sewing discord within the teams he raced for and putting himself before the team. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, that's a big part of what limited his success in F1.


I agree with all of that.

I'm talking about how good they are at driving F1 cars not how great they are. Success makes a driver greater but obviously does not effect how good a driver actually is.

for example Hamilton will become "greater" when he levels Schumacher championships but won't become a better driver for doing it. He won't wake up the day after clinching the championship a better F1 driver than he was the morning previous.

I certainly agree to a point but I think people are not robots. There are a lot of elements that affect your performance. Your raw talent, experience level, confidence, stress level, habits, lifestyle/social circle will all impact your performance behind the wheel as is evidenced by the fact that the same driver can perform substantially better or worse from one season to another. So being the greatest and being the best are not one and the same but they are not completely separate either.

Anyway, if you're talking about raw talent or who has the highest ceiling, IMO there is even less of a debate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Schumacher didn't start winning titles for Ferrari until the point they gave him the best car, he lost in 2006 in the equal best car but we still presume him to be the best driver and similar can be said for all the drivers, Senna had to go to McLaren.

The best drivers position themselves into the best cars and then that's when history gets made, you don't know that Hamilton would not have positioned himself at some point into the Mercedes car?

Similar with Verstappen at some point he will position himself into the best car if Red Bull don't deliver, it's what happens and not what might have happened, It's Hamilton's standing in the sport that enabled him to get were he needed to go.

I know you like to champion Alonso but the truth is that the top teams don't see him as being better than the likes of Hamilton, if Hamilton can't be perceived as a great then none of the present drivers can.


I think Hamilton is a great.

I'm saying achieving more success does not make a driver better. Therefore you can't use success on its own as an indicator of how good a driver actually is. Small differences in 2010 and 2012 could make Alonso a 4xWDC and Vettel only a 2xWDC. Neither driver would necessarily be better or worse for that though.

Or another example did Hamilton become a better driver after the Mexican Grand Prix last year than he was before it? Obviously not. A greater one perhaps.

I would agree that a level of greatness is affected by more success.

Success is an indicator of how great a driver is. It's just not the only indicator. You also need context to put that success in perspective. What you cannot do is ignore success (or lack thereof) and treat winning races and championships as if it doesn't matter. Winning is the ultimate barometer for greatness in any sport.

Your point about Alonso in 2010 and 2012 is meaningful but not in the way you seem to think. The 2010 championship was within his grasp but he didn't pull it off. Finding a way around Petrov would have won him the title that year. Likewise, in 2012 a single race win during the second half of the season would probably have been enough to secure the title but he didn't win another race after the first half.

I'm not trying to nitpick. You can't win them all and all great drivers have had years where they have come up short but Alonso has had 5 legitimate chances to win the championship and has only pulled it off twice. The other three times, he lost by a narrow margin and in none of those scenarios did he win the last race (a fete that would have secured him those titles). So the opportunity was absolutely there for Fernando to cement himself much higher on the all-time list but he did not manage to pull it off.

Part of greatness is delivering when it matters most. When I think of Senna and what makes him great; the 1988 Japanese GP comes to mind. A race where he secured the championship over his teammate Prost by dropping down to 16th after a stall at the start and then charging through the field (including Prost) to win. Hamilton has won titles in the final round several times. In 08' there was that dramatic finish in Brazil. In 2014 he won the final race in Abu Dhabi. Same in 2016 but he ended up still losing out on the championship despite winning the race. Where was that Moment for Alonso where he came through when things went down to the wire and the pressure was high? Both of Alonso's championship seasons were cases of him building a lead in the first half of the season and then holding on to win while Raikkonen or Schumacher closed down the gap.

Was Alonso a great driver? Of course but he did not have a track record of delivering under pressure. More importantly, he did have a track record of sewing discord within the teams he raced for and putting himself before the team. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, that's a big part of what limited his success in F1.


I agree with all of that.

I'm talking about how good they are at driving F1 cars not how great they are. Success makes a driver greater but obviously does not effect how good a driver actually is.

for example Hamilton will become "greater" when he levels Schumacher championships but won't become a better driver for doing it. He won't wake up the day after clinching the championship a better F1 driver than he was the morning previous.

He can't be a better driver than what he is?

That's not the measure though, it's how he's perceived among his peers and that's measured mainly by success.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6698
DOLOMITE wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Was Alonso a great driver? Of course but he did not have a track record of delivering under pressure. More importantly, he did have a track record of sewing discord within the teams he raced for and putting himself before the team. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, that's a big part of what limited his success in F1.


Really? I don't think he could have done much more in his Ferrari years and there was huge pressure/expectations there surely.

That's more of a generalized comment. I actually don't agree with that either. At Ferrari, the pressure was off. Usually the perception was that Red Bull had the better car (which they did). Also there was no challenge from a teammate as he had clear #1 status. So he was always miles ahead of Felipe in the points and no one held it against him when he didn't win championships. Ferrari were pretty much universally blamed for that.

I wasn't referring to the generalized idea of performing under pressure; I was referring to specific and acute moments/races where the pressure was really piled on. Races where the championship was on the line. He's never won one of those in his career. The other drivers we are discussing in here pretty much all have. Senna had that amazing win at Suzuka in 88' to take the title but he actually delivered even in 89' in Suzuka (I know Suzuka wasn't technically the last race but the points system back then was very different and it was the equivalent). Sure he was later stripped of the win (now that's a penalty to complain about) but he got the job done on the day when the pressure was on. Likewise Hamilton in 2014 won the title by winning that last race (in fact won 6 of the last 7) where everything was on the line and he won that last race again in 2016 (in fact the last 4 races) with everything on the line but it wasn't enough to take the title. Alonso has not had those clutch wins in his career.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 670
If you look at it another way Hamilton is now approaching Schumacher’s records, and seems to have the appetite to try and beat them. This motivates him to improve and perfect his craft, knowing he will need to be at the top of his game as the next generation of Max and company continue to improve and approach their prime. Win or lose he will be a better driver at the end of it, driven on by his previous successes. Look even at the last race – in the early stages in Hungary he was asking his engineers what parts of the track he was losing time to Verstappen, always looking for those small improvements so when it came to crunch time he gave himself the best chance of closing the gap and making a move stick.

Without those championship wins, perhaps he would be a step closer to calling it a day and trying his hand at something different. In that scenario he will not end his career as good a driver as the first scenario. How they learn from their successes and failures completely impacts how good they ultimately become, which in turn defines their greatness. Perhaps Vettel will surge back next season, but when you look closer at the events of last few seasons everything points to Hamilton rising to the challenge, although we are yet to see what happens when the challenge is against Max. With Max feeling the true pressure of a title fight. Something I hope we get to see, regardless of the outcome.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15603
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Schumacher didn't start winning titles for Ferrari until the point they gave him the best car, he lost in 2006 in the equal best car but we still presume him to be the best driver and similar can be said for all the drivers, Senna had to go to McLaren.

The best drivers position themselves into the best cars and then that's when history gets made, you don't know that Hamilton would not have positioned himself at some point into the Mercedes car?

Similar with Verstappen at some point he will position himself into the best car if Red Bull don't deliver, it's what happens and not what might have happened, It's Hamilton's standing in the sport that enabled him to get were he needed to go.

I know you like to champion Alonso but the truth is that the top teams don't see him as being better than the likes of Hamilton, if Hamilton can't be perceived as a great then none of the present drivers can.


I think Hamilton is a great.

I'm saying achieving more success does not make a driver better. Therefore you can't use success on its own as an indicator of how good a driver actually is. Small differences in 2010 and 2012 could make Alonso a 4xWDC and Vettel only a 2xWDC. Neither driver would necessarily be better or worse for that though.

Or another example did Hamilton become a better driver after the Mexican Grand Prix last year than he was before it? Obviously not. A greater one perhaps.

I would agree that a level of greatness is affected by more success.

Success is an indicator of how great a driver is. It's just not the only indicator. You also need context to put that success in perspective. What you cannot do is ignore success (or lack thereof) and treat winning races and championships as if it doesn't matter. Winning is the ultimate barometer for greatness in any sport.

Your point about Alonso in 2010 and 2012 is meaningful but not in the way you seem to think. The 2010 championship was within his grasp but he didn't pull it off. Finding a way around Petrov would have won him the title that year. Likewise, in 2012 a single race win during the second half of the season would probably have been enough to secure the title but he didn't win another race after the first half.

I'm not trying to nitpick. You can't win them all and all great drivers have had years where they have come up short but Alonso has had 5 legitimate chances to win the championship and has only pulled it off twice. The other three times, he lost by a narrow margin and in none of those scenarios did he win the last race (a fete that would have secured him those titles). So the opportunity was absolutely there for Fernando to cement himself much higher on the all-time list but he did not manage to pull it off.

Part of greatness is delivering when it matters most. When I think of Senna and what makes him great; the 1988 Japanese GP comes to mind. A race where he secured the championship over his teammate Prost by dropping down to 16th after a stall at the start and then charging through the field (including Prost) to win. Hamilton has won titles in the final round several times. In 08' there was that dramatic finish in Brazil. In 2014 he won the final race in Abu Dhabi. Same in 2016 but he ended up still losing out on the championship despite winning the race. Where was that Moment for Alonso where he came through when things went down to the wire and the pressure was high? Both of Alonso's championship seasons were cases of him building a lead in the first half of the season and then holding on to win while Raikkonen or Schumacher closed down the gap.

Was Alonso a great driver? Of course but he did not have a track record of delivering under pressure. More importantly, he did have a track record of sewing discord within the teams he raced for and putting himself before the team. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, that's a big part of what limited his success in F1.


I agree with all of that.

I'm talking about how good they are at driving F1 cars not how great they are. Success makes a driver greater but obviously does not effect how good a driver actually is.

for example Hamilton will become "greater" when he levels Schumacher championships but won't become a better driver for doing it. He won't wake up the day after clinching the championship a better F1 driver than he was the morning previous.

He can't be a better driver than what he is?

That's not the measure though, it's how he's perceived among his peers and that's measured mainly by success.


Yes. More successful could mean a driver is (falsely) perceived as better than he would be if he had achieved less success.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 670
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think Hamilton is a great.

I'm saying achieving more success does not make a driver better. Therefore you can't use success on its own as an indicator of how good a driver actually is. Small differences in 2010 and 2012 could make Alonso a 4xWDC and Vettel only a 2xWDC. Neither driver would necessarily be better or worse for that though.

Or another example did Hamilton become a better driver after the Mexican Grand Prix last year than he was before it? Obviously not. A greater one perhaps.

I would agree that a level of greatness is affected by more success.

Success is an indicator of how great a driver is. It's just not the only indicator. You also need context to put that success in perspective. What you cannot do is ignore success (or lack thereof) and treat winning races and championships as if it doesn't matter. Winning is the ultimate barometer for greatness in any sport.

Your point about Alonso in 2010 and 2012 is meaningful but not in the way you seem to think. The 2010 championship was within his grasp but he didn't pull it off. Finding a way around Petrov would have won him the title that year. Likewise, in 2012 a single race win during the second half of the season would probably have been enough to secure the title but he didn't win another race after the first half.

I'm not trying to nitpick. You can't win them all and all great drivers have had years where they have come up short but Alonso has had 5 legitimate chances to win the championship and has only pulled it off twice. The other three times, he lost by a narrow margin and in none of those scenarios did he win the last race (a fete that would have secured him those titles). So the opportunity was absolutely there for Fernando to cement himself much higher on the all-time list but he did not manage to pull it off.

Part of greatness is delivering when it matters most. When I think of Senna and what makes him great; the 1988 Japanese GP comes to mind. A race where he secured the championship over his teammate Prost by dropping down to 16th after a stall at the start and then charging through the field (including Prost) to win. Hamilton has won titles in the final round several times. In 08' there was that dramatic finish in Brazil. In 2014 he won the final race in Abu Dhabi. Same in 2016 but he ended up still losing out on the championship despite winning the race. Where was that Moment for Alonso where he came through when things went down to the wire and the pressure was high? Both of Alonso's championship seasons were cases of him building a lead in the first half of the season and then holding on to win while Raikkonen or Schumacher closed down the gap.

Was Alonso a great driver? Of course but he did not have a track record of delivering under pressure. More importantly, he did have a track record of sewing discord within the teams he raced for and putting himself before the team. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, that's a big part of what limited his success in F1.


I agree with all of that.

I'm talking about how good they are at driving F1 cars not how great they are. Success makes a driver greater but obviously does not effect how good a driver actually is.

for example Hamilton will become "greater" when he levels Schumacher championships but won't become a better driver for doing it. He won't wake up the day after clinching the championship a better F1 driver than he was the morning previous.

He can't be a better driver than what he is?

That's not the measure though, it's how he's perceived among his peers and that's measured mainly by success.


Yes. More successful could mean a driver is (falsely) perceived as better than he would be if he had achieved less success.

This is definitely true, but the two are not completely independent.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: UnlikeUday and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group