planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:01 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6869
WHoff78 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
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.

Exactly. To be the greatest you will almost certainly need to be either the best or at least very close to the best. Greatness incorporates timeliness into the equation. If you follow basketball, this is sort of like the difference between Michael Jordan and Lebron James when discussing the all-time greats in that sport. Both were amazing and you can make a strong argument for either as being the best player. In terms of greatness though, Michael seemed to always deliver when it mattered most wheres Lebron has been more hit and miss in the big moment/game. That means Jordan is greater IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 702
Success can also have the opposite effect. Win to much too early, and you may just decide to coast of your previous successes, and slowly become eclipsed by the chasing pack. This is probably completely unfair, given my lack of knowledge of the sport, but Rory Mcllroy comes to mind and looked like he would push on to be one of the all time greats in the early stages of his career – it is unclear though whether he went off the boil, or is just an example of being perceived better than his ability due to his early success – from what you hear though it does seem like more of the former, but perhaps someone will correct me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16040
sandman1347 wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

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.

Exactly. To be the greatest you will almost certainly need to be either the best or at least very close to the best. Greatness incorporates timeliness into the equation. If you follow basketball, this is sort of like the difference between Michael Jordan and Lebron James when discussing the all-time greats in that sport. Both were amazing and you can make a strong argument for either as being the best player. In terms of greatness though, Michael seemed to always deliver when it mattered most wheres Lebron has been more hit and miss in the big moment/game. That means Jordan is greater IMO.


Agreed. I would use Lauda as an example. His career as whole is barely top 15 worthy IMO. However his legacy is such that he sneaks into my top 10. I find "great" a lot easier to judge than "best" You can incorporate more easily definable variables like success.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16040
WHoff78 wrote:
Success can also have the opposite effect. Win to much too early, and you may just decide to coast of your previous successes, and slowly become eclipsed by the chasing pack. This is probably completely unfair, given my lack of knowledge of the sport, but Rory Mcllroy comes to mind and looked like he would push on to be one of the all time greats in the early stages of his career – it is unclear though whether he went off the boil, or is just an example of being perceived better than his ability due to his early success – from what you hear though it does seem like more of the former, but perhaps someone will correct me.


Usain Bolt another example. Put his best times up in 2009 and then spent the next 8 years gradually getting slower. He should have been able to steadily improve from 2009 to at least 2015.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:29 pm
Posts: 2530
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'?


I think this more speaks more about how making judgements about drivers from some time in the past will be flawed from the faded memory of that period, rather than an argument for saying current successful drivers should be viewed as all time greats. It's only that the only thing we concretely remember from them is their statistics. However, with current drivers we can use more tools to analyse their apparent greatness than simply their statistics.

The could have, would have, should have are still very much a valid argument, and I believe narrowing it down to success is just a lazy way to determine whether someone is really great or not.

_________________
"Always believe you will become the best, but never believe you have done so"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 4193
Schumacher forever#1 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'?


I think this more speaks more about how making judgements about drivers from some time in the past will be flawed from the faded memory of that period, rather than an argument for saying current successful drivers should be viewed as all time greats. It's only that the only thing we concretely remember from them is their statistics. However, with current drivers we can use more tools to analyse their apparent greatness than simply their statistics.

The could have, would have, should have are still very much a valid argument, and I believe narrowing it down to success is just a lazy way to determine whether someone is really great or not.


I agree. How much more may Senna have won had Imola been so very different? That's why simple stats are no good on their own.

_________________
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 8:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6869
Schumacher forever#1 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'?


I think this more speaks more about how making judgements about drivers from some time in the past will be flawed from the faded memory of that period, rather than an argument for saying current successful drivers should be viewed as all time greats. It's only that the only thing we concretely remember from them is their statistics. However, with current drivers we can use more tools to analyse their apparent greatness than simply their statistics.

The could have, would have, should have are still very much a valid argument, and I believe narrowing it down to success is just a lazy way to determine whether someone is really great or not.

I don't agree. The woulda, coulda, shoulda (especially woulda) argument is just a way for people to fight facts with assertions. You can do it for anyone. I'll show you:

1. If Senna hadn't died, he would have won more titles than anyone in history.
2. If Schumacher had raced in identical machinery to Senna, he would have beaten him.
3. If Alonso drove the Mercedes these last few years, he would have done better than Hamilton did in it.
4. If Hamilton had been in the Ferrari instead of Alonso, he would have beaten Vettel to the titles in 2010 and 2012.
5. If Max were in the Mercedes, he would beat Hamilton.

See? I can literally make up anything I want and use it to prop up anyone I want. It just has to be plausible. People who like hearing it will agree with me. People who don't, will not. It's meaningless. What matters is what actually happens. Not what someone says would happen in a make-believe scenario. The fact is that we don't know what "would" happen in these made up scenarios because THEY DIDN'T HAPPEN.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 2405
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.


Your reductionistic argument and general angle in this thread is highly spurious. We can point to a particular instance where if single events changed Alonso would have more and Vettel less titles and suppose that all possible eventualities don't make one "better" than in the case of other outcomes, but this is not the same as demonstrating success across a breadth of events across multiple regulations and then claiming "but X would not be a better driver for doing it". What this is far more likely indicative of is a person who has, for whatever strange reason, crystallised their opinion on a driver based on some circumstance in which they felt drivers were aptly comparable, and set limits on the band of their potential greatness for anything to come, regardless of what new situations and challenges arise which the driver then has to navigate afresh in the continued proof of their abilities. This is tantamount to ignoring much, even the majority, of one's career based on judgments that have come long before time, long before the end, and long before new challenges and circumstances arise which are far different to those which formed a quite immovable perspective. It's a bit like projecting a weather forecast and saying it's still sunny when it rains one week later. OK it's not quite that bad, but I wanted to illustrate how limited and selective the inferred perspective can be and often is.

Drivers change. They evolve, improve, diminish. A career of winning (which is what these guys aim for) is not based on a best season, a best race or a best lap. It is based on a long winding journey of twists and turns, of challenges anew and and a continued adaptation. Some circumstances will see a driver rise and make the most of their potential, or fall by the wayside. Sebastian Vettel and Lewis Hamilton are not the same drivers they were years ago and they didn't have some static and immovable level of "bestness" or ability which as a property carried them unchangeably through each successive season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 2405
Ultimately, though judgments can be inferred from smaller frames of reference, it is best to judge events as they actually happen, in and of themselves, in its context, which then add to the overall ledger of one's career.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32789
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.

Like Vettel perhaps?

In respect to Hamilton he's shown himself to have no peers so there can be little to question about his success, he's succeeded against 4 world champions one being Alonso who can be seen as a benchmark, Alonso proved himself against Schumacher in 2006 so there is some lineage there.

Personally I think we are in a rich vein of drivers, Vettel himself saw off easily drivers like Webber and Kimi who both were seen as being top level in the 2000s.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:29 pm
Posts: 2530
sandman1347 wrote:
Schumacher forever#1 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'?


I think this more speaks more about how making judgements about drivers from some time in the past will be flawed from the faded memory of that period, rather than an argument for saying current successful drivers should be viewed as all time greats. It's only that the only thing we concretely remember from them is their statistics. However, with current drivers we can use more tools to analyse their apparent greatness than simply their statistics.

The could have, would have, should have are still very much a valid argument, and I believe narrowing it down to success is just a lazy way to determine whether someone is really great or not.

I don't agree. The woulda, coulda, shoulda (especially woulda) argument is just a way for people to fight facts with assertions. You can do it for anyone. I'll show you:

1. If Senna hadn't died, he would have won more titles than anyone in history.
2. If Schumacher had raced in identical machinery to Senna, he would have beaten him.
3. If Alonso drove the Mercedes these last few years, he would have done better than Hamilton did in it.
4. If Hamilton had been in the Ferrari instead of Alonso, he would have beaten Vettel to the titles in 2010 and 2012.
5. If Max were in the Mercedes, he would beat Hamilton.

See? I can literally make up anything I want and use it to prop up anyone I want. It just has to be plausible. People who like hearing it will agree with me. People who don't, will not. It's meaningless. What matters is what actually happens. Not what someone says would happen in a make-believe scenario. The fact is that we don't know what "would" happen in these made up scenarios because THEY DIDN'T HAPPEN.


I do agree with you. Tbh I was trying to wrap my reply to Shoot with some of the other posts as I was trying to catch up on this thread and was not the best use of words. My main point in my post is that narrowing down to statistics is not effective. Also that the ultimate winner of a championship in a given year shouldn't be deemed as the best driver and it should more so come down to who had the best performance and "would have won" in equal machinery. And then you can further expand this across a generation to get an idea of the greatest in that period. Not the number of poles wins and championships over that period.

_________________
"Always believe you will become the best, but never believe you have done so"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 2405
Schumacher forever#1 wrote:

I do agree with you. Tbh I was trying to wrap my reply to Shoot with some of the other posts as I was trying to catch up on this thread and was not the best use of words. My main point in my post is that narrowing down to statistics is not effective. Also that the ultimate winner of a championship in a given year shouldn't be deemed as the best driver and it should more so come down to who had the best performance and "would have won" in equal machinery. And then you can further expand this across a generation to get an idea of the greatest in that period. Not the number of poles wins and championships over that period.



Indeed it isn't. You could say: why watch any sport if all it comes down to in the end is a bunch of numbers on a spreadsheet?

But in this day and age, for most sports, numbers blindly trump context. There's even a view among some in some sports that these statistics are the only objective way to measure greatness, which is a quite bizarre point of view. Their point is that subjective opinions taint the realities of success which are embodied in the numbers, and that any subjective nuance is therefore by definition less objective and unhelpful to forming an overall view of events. I of course think that this is absurd.

But Formula 1 actually suffers the opposite fate, which too compels absurdities; but they can hide behind a veil of uncertainty because the conditions in F1 are genuinely difficult to map and therefore (almost) anything under the sun can appear plausible even though arguments may merely be meretricious or sheer sophistry, especially with regard to motive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3273
Location: UK
sandman1347 wrote:
Schumacher forever#1 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'?


I think this more speaks more about how making judgements about drivers from some time in the past will be flawed from the faded memory of that period, rather than an argument for saying current successful drivers should be viewed as all time greats. It's only that the only thing we concretely remember from them is their statistics. However, with current drivers we can use more tools to analyse their apparent greatness than simply their statistics.

The could have, would have, should have are still very much a valid argument, and I believe narrowing it down to success is just a lazy way to determine whether someone is really great or not.

I don't agree. The woulda, coulda, shoulda (especially woulda) argument is just a way for people to fight facts with assertions. You can do it for anyone. I'll show you:

1. If Senna hadn't died, he would have won more titles than anyone in history.
2. If Schumacher had raced in identical machinery to Senna, he would have beaten him.
3. If Alonso drove the Mercedes these last few years, he would have done better than Hamilton did in it.
4. If Hamilton had been in the Ferrari instead of Alonso, he would have beaten Vettel to the titles in 2010 and 2012.
5. If Max were in the Mercedes, he would beat Hamilton.

See? I can literally make up anything I want and use it to prop up anyone I want. It just has to be plausible. People who like hearing it will agree with me. People who don't, will not. It's meaningless. What matters is what actually happens. Not what someone says would happen in a make-believe scenario. The fact is that we don't know what "would" happen in these made up scenarios because THEY DIDN'T HAPPEN.

The problem with making comparisons between drivers is that there are so many variables in play aside from talent that a direct "X is/was better than Y" statement is almost impossible. If you want to declare one top driver to be better than another then you have to fall back on a subjective opinion at some point and what people are saying here are not baseless assertions, they are for the most part informed opinions that have been formed through watching the drivers concerned over a number of years. Some people, myself included, do believe that Alonso is/was an even better driver than Hamilton. No, it cannot be directly backed up with facts, but what does add weight to the argument is that a large number of people have independently come up with this viewpoint just from watching Alonso's career.

You want facts? Stirling Moss never won a championship. I suggest we therefore remove him from all these all-time greats lists.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6869
Schumacher forever#1 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I don't agree. The woulda, coulda, shoulda (especially woulda) argument is just a way for people to fight facts with assertions. You can do it for anyone. I'll show you:

1. If Senna hadn't died, he would have won more titles than anyone in history.
2. If Schumacher had raced in identical machinery to Senna, he would have beaten him.
3. If Alonso drove the Mercedes these last few years, he would have done better than Hamilton did in it.
4. If Hamilton had been in the Ferrari instead of Alonso, he would have beaten Vettel to the titles in 2010 and 2012.
5. If Max were in the Mercedes, he would beat Hamilton.

See? I can literally make up anything I want and use it to prop up anyone I want. It just has to be plausible. People who like hearing it will agree with me. People who don't, will not. It's meaningless. What matters is what actually happens. Not what someone says would happen in a make-believe scenario. The fact is that we don't know what "would" happen in these made up scenarios because THEY DIDN'T HAPPEN.


I do agree with you. Tbh I was trying to wrap my reply to Shoot with some of the other posts as I was trying to catch up on this thread and was not the best use of words. My main point in my post is that narrowing down to statistics is not effective. Also that the ultimate winner of a championship in a given year shouldn't be deemed as the best driver and it should more so come down to who had the best performance and "would have won" in equal machinery. And then you can further expand this across a generation to get an idea of the greatest in that period. Not the number of poles wins and championships over that period.

I 100% agree that it's not all about statistics. It is all about what actually happens though and not what "would have" happened based on someone's assertion. For example, statistically, Vettel had better numbers than any driver other than Hamilton last year but in terms of driving, there were quite a few drivers who performed better. We don't have to go to the land of make-believe to justify that opinion. We can base it on what actually happened that year in terms of driving mistakes, etc. I'm not for one second saying that you should only look at the numbers but I do think that you should only look at actual events and never at what someone claims "would have happened" in an alternate reality.

I also don't think that the WDC is automatically driver of the year. I can think of several seasons in which I wouldn't personally vote for the WDC as driver of the year. That said, I disagree with the notion that you can copy paste a good performance from the midfield into a front-running car and then claim that driver would have won in identical machinery to the WDC. It's not just the car that changes when you're up front; it's the competition, the level of pressure, the requirement for consistency, etc. Most people fail to take any of that into consideration.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6869
j man wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I don't agree. The woulda, coulda, shoulda (especially woulda) argument is just a way for people to fight facts with assertions. You can do it for anyone. I'll show you:

1. If Senna hadn't died, he would have won more titles than anyone in history.
2. If Schumacher had raced in identical machinery to Senna, he would have beaten him.
3. If Alonso drove the Mercedes these last few years, he would have done better than Hamilton did in it.
4. If Hamilton had been in the Ferrari instead of Alonso, he would have beaten Vettel to the titles in 2010 and 2012.
5. If Max were in the Mercedes, he would beat Hamilton.

See? I can literally make up anything I want and use it to prop up anyone I want. It just has to be plausible. People who like hearing it will agree with me. People who don't, will not. It's meaningless. What matters is what actually happens. Not what someone says would happen in a make-believe scenario. The fact is that we don't know what "would" happen in these made up scenarios because THEY DIDN'T HAPPEN.

The problem with making comparisons between drivers is that there are so many variables in play aside from talent that a direct "X is/was better than Y" statement is almost impossible. If you want to declare one top driver to be better than another then you have to fall back on a subjective opinion at some point and what people are saying here are not baseless assertions, they are for the most part informed opinions that have been formed through watching the drivers concerned over a number of years. Some people, myself included, do believe that Alonso is/was an even better driver than Hamilton. No, it cannot be directly backed up with facts, but what does add weight to the argument is that a large number of people have independently come up with this viewpoint just from watching Alonso's career.

You want facts? Stirling Moss never won a championship. I suggest we therefore remove him from all these all-time greats lists.

I don't have a problem with your opinion even though I don't agree with you. There are some people who say Prost was better than Senna despite the fact that they raced in the same car and Senna was in a different universe. There are some people who maintained that Vettel was better than Ricciardo despite what happened when they were teammates. Even when you achieve the best possible parameters to isolate driver performance, there will be some who refuse to accept the facts. My experience is that 90% of so called "opinions" expressed about F1 are really just people supporting the drivers that they support. In Hamilton and Alonso's case, we certainly do not have things as clear cut as those other examples so I think that some differing opinions are to be expected.

My only point is that you need to base your views on what they have actually done and not on made up assertions about how they would perform in a scenario that never happened. The problem with those assertions is that they are simplistic and they tend to assume that things just go smoothly and predictably. Would you have guessed that Alonso would spend most of the race stuck behind Petrov when the title was on the line in 2010? Would you have predicted that Hamilton's engine would have blown up while he was 16 seconds in the lead in Malaysia in 2016? Would you have predicted that Senna would have been stripped of the win at Suzuka in 89'? Would you have guessed that Vettel would make so many substantial and costly driving errors going into 2018? The answer to all of those questions is probably "no" if you're being honest yet that is what happened in those scenarios. The "would have" argument is naive as it ignores the unpredictability of racing (and life in general).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2527
Actually success does improve a driver, more success usually leads to.more experience and a comfortablility in knowledge of one's ability allows more relaxed driving, smoother, more consistent, which leads to more success than a peaky driver (eg Hamilton early years when he had everything to prove Vs now when he has proved it, also see Verstappen improvements)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 2405
FormulaFun wrote:
Actually success does improve a driver, more success usually leads to.more experience and a comfortablility in knowledge of one's ability allows more relaxed driving, smoother, more consistent, which leads to more success than a peaky driver (eg Hamilton early years when he had everything to prove Vs now when he has proved it, also see Verstappen improvements)


:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 6:16 pm
Posts: 11
I think it's important to note that nearly all of Hamilton's WDC's have come in the turbo-hybrid era.

In this era all you really have to do to win the WDC is beat the guy in the other Merc.

How many of the current grid would beat Bottas in the same car? 40-70% of them? Are they All-Time Greats as well?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:41 am
Posts: 204
HamsterTime wrote:
I think it's important to note that nearly all of Hamilton's WDC's have come in the turbo-hybrid era.

In this era all you really have to do to win the WDC is beat the guy in the other Merc.

How many of the current grid would beat Bottas in the same car? 40-70% of them? Are they All-Time Greats as well?


Did you have your head buried in the sand during 2017 & 2018? Ferrari had title challenging cars in both these years. Particularly 2018, the Ferrari car was a match for the Merc, arguably better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 6:16 pm
Posts: 11
SR1 wrote:
HamsterTime wrote:
I think it's important to note that nearly all of Hamilton's WDC's have come in the turbo-hybrid era.

In this era all you really have to do to win the WDC is beat the guy in the other Merc.

How many of the current grid would beat Bottas in the same car? 40-70% of them? Are they All-Time Greats as well?


Did you have your head buried in the sand during 2017 & 2018? Ferrari had title challenging cars in both these years. Particularly 2018, the Ferrari car was a match for the Merc, arguably better.


I disagree. Faster in a straight line doesn't necessarily mean easier to drive / better.

2017
Mercedes - 668
Ferrari - 522

2018
Mercedes - 655
Ferrari - 571


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32789
SR1 wrote:
HamsterTime wrote:
I think it's important to note that nearly all of Hamilton's WDC's have come in the turbo-hybrid era.

In this era all you really have to do to win the WDC is beat the guy in the other Merc.

How many of the current grid would beat Bottas in the same car? 40-70% of them? Are they All-Time Greats as well?


Did you have your head buried in the sand during 2017 & 2018? Ferrari had title challenging cars in both these years. Particularly 2018, the Ferrari car was a match for the Merc, arguably better.

Given it's a new account, given the username which comes across as a parody of the hammertime war cry, I would maybe treat the post with a pinch of salt?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32789
HamsterTime wrote:
SR1 wrote:
HamsterTime wrote:
I think it's important to note that nearly all of Hamilton's WDC's have come in the turbo-hybrid era.

In this era all you really have to do to win the WDC is beat the guy in the other Merc.

How many of the current grid would beat Bottas in the same car? 40-70% of them? Are they All-Time Greats as well?


Did you have your head buried in the sand during 2017 & 2018? Ferrari had title challenging cars in both these years. Particularly 2018, the Ferrari car was a match for the Merc, arguably better.


I disagree. Faster in a straight line doesn't necessarily mean easier to drive / better.

2017
Mercedes - 668
Ferrari - 522

2018
Mercedes - 655
Ferrari - 571

Ok I will bite, the Mercedes was faster in a straight line in 2017.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 7:06 pm
Posts: 247
pokerman wrote:
HamsterTime wrote:
SR1 wrote:
HamsterTime wrote:
I think it's important to note that nearly all of Hamilton's WDC's have come in the turbo-hybrid era.

In this era all you really have to do to win the WDC is beat the guy in the other Merc.

How many of the current grid would beat Bottas in the same car? 40-70% of them? Are they All-Time Greats as well?


Did you have your head buried in the sand during 2017 & 2018? Ferrari had title challenging cars in both these years. Particularly 2018, the Ferrari car was a match for the Merc, arguably better.


I disagree. Faster in a straight line doesn't necessarily mean easier to drive / better.

2017
Mercedes - 668
Ferrari - 522

2018
Mercedes - 655
Ferrari - 571

Ok I will bite, the Mercedes was faster in a straight line in 2017.


Which doesnt account to much really. A certain red car is loads quicker in a straight line this year, & how many wins do they have??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16040
cmberry20 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
HamsterTime wrote:
SR1 wrote:
HamsterTime wrote:
I think it's important to note that nearly all of Hamilton's WDC's have come in the turbo-hybrid era.

In this era all you really have to do to win the WDC is beat the guy in the other Merc.

How many of the current grid would beat Bottas in the same car? 40-70% of them? Are they All-Time Greats as well?


Did you have your head buried in the sand during 2017 & 2018? Ferrari had title challenging cars in both these years. Particularly 2018, the Ferrari car was a match for the Merc, arguably better.


I disagree. Faster in a straight line doesn't necessarily mean easier to drive / better.

2017
Mercedes - 668
Ferrari - 522

2018
Mercedes - 655
Ferrari - 571

Ok I will bite, the Mercedes was faster in a straight line in 2017.


Which doesnt account to much really. A certain red car is loads quicker in a straight line this year, & how many wins do they have??


Unless I am mistaken that's the point Poker is making.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 1:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32789
mikeyg123 wrote:
cmberry20 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
HamsterTime wrote:
SR1 wrote:
Did you have your head buried in the sand during 2017 & 2018? Ferrari had title challenging cars in both these years. Particularly 2018, the Ferrari car was a match for the Merc, arguably better.


I disagree. Faster in a straight line doesn't necessarily mean easier to drive / better.

2017
Mercedes - 668
Ferrari - 522

2018
Mercedes - 655
Ferrari - 571

Ok I will bite, the Mercedes was faster in a straight line in 2017.


Which doesnt account to much really. A certain red car is loads quicker in a straight line this year, & how many wins do they have??


Unless I am mistaken that's the point Poker is making.

Cheers, why does the reverse argument tend to confuse as much? :)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am
Posts: 234
SR1 wrote:
HamsterTime wrote:
I think it's important to note that nearly all of Hamilton's WDC's have come in the turbo-hybrid era.

In this era all you really have to do to win the WDC is beat the guy in the other Merc.

How many of the current grid would beat Bottas in the same car? 40-70% of them? Are they All-Time Greats as well?


Did you have your head buried in the sand during 2017 & 2018? Ferrari had title challenging cars in both these years. Particularly 2018, the Ferrari car was a match for the Merc, arguably better.


The 2017 Merc was much better than the Ferrari, all things (including reliability) taken into account. 2018 was as much about HAM not making mistakes as it was about VET throwing it away (I distinctly remember HAM being salty at Silverstone after getting beaten, suggesting that Raikkonen had deliberately crashed into him - nothing but pressure - who knows how it would have been if VET had not bottled it up) - I would consider the cars to be roughly equal, with Merc having a slight edge overall.

I think the point of the argument is still a valid one - all Hamilton has had to do is beat the guy driving the other car, which he managed 2 out of 3 with ROS, and every time with BOT. These achievements are not what gets you classified as an all-time great (FWIW, I think HAM makes that list) - think of MSC in 1996/7/8/9 vs the 2004 version - the former did a lot more for his reputation than the one where all he had to do is beat BAR (and BAR-Honda) ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32789
A.J. wrote:
SR1 wrote:
HamsterTime wrote:
I think it's important to note that nearly all of Hamilton's WDC's have come in the turbo-hybrid era.

In this era all you really have to do to win the WDC is beat the guy in the other Merc.

How many of the current grid would beat Bottas in the same car? 40-70% of them? Are they All-Time Greats as well?


Did you have your head buried in the sand during 2017 & 2018? Ferrari had title challenging cars in both these years. Particularly 2018, the Ferrari car was a match for the Merc, arguably better.


The 2017 Merc was much better than the Ferrari, all things (including reliability) taken into account. 2018 was as much about HAM not making mistakes as it was about VET throwing it away (I distinctly remember HAM being salty at Silverstone after getting beaten, suggesting that Raikkonen had deliberately crashed into him - nothing but pressure - who knows how it would have been if VET had not bottled it up) - I would consider the cars to be roughly equal, with Merc having a slight edge overall.

I think the point of the argument is still a valid one - all Hamilton has had to do is beat the guy driving the other car, which he managed 2 out of 3 with ROS, and every time with BOT. These achievements are not what gets you classified as an all-time great (FWIW, I think HAM makes that list) - think of MSC in 1996/7/8/9 vs the 2004 version - the former did a lot more for his reputation than the one where all he had to do is beat BAR (and BAR-Honda) ;)

A bit of a history lesson, in 2017 Vettel was only 3 points behind Hamilton in the WDC after 13 races, the next race he was on pole with Hamilton only 5th, Vettel then crashed out 3 cars at the start gifting Hamilton the win, from there Hamilton never looked back.

In 2018 Vettel was leading the WDC by 8 points after 10 races, he was then leading comfortably in Germany before he crashed out again gifting Hamilton the win, after that Hamilton never lost the lead in the WDC.

This is Hamilton only having his teammate to beat whilst giving a 4xWDC seemingly little credibility?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am
Posts: 234
pokerman wrote:
A.J. wrote:
SR1 wrote:
HamsterTime wrote:
I think it's important to note that nearly all of Hamilton's WDC's have come in the turbo-hybrid era.

In this era all you really have to do to win the WDC is beat the guy in the other Merc.

How many of the current grid would beat Bottas in the same car? 40-70% of them? Are they All-Time Greats as well?


Did you have your head buried in the sand during 2017 & 2018? Ferrari had title challenging cars in both these years. Particularly 2018, the Ferrari car was a match for the Merc, arguably better.


The 2017 Merc was much better than the Ferrari, all things (including reliability) taken into account. 2018 was as much about HAM not making mistakes as it was about VET throwing it away (I distinctly remember HAM being salty at Silverstone after getting beaten, suggesting that Raikkonen had deliberately crashed into him - nothing but pressure - who knows how it would have been if VET had not bottled it up) - I would consider the cars to be roughly equal, with Merc having a slight edge overall.

I think the point of the argument is still a valid one - all Hamilton has had to do is beat the guy driving the other car, which he managed 2 out of 3 with ROS, and every time with BOT. These achievements are not what gets you classified as an all-time great (FWIW, I think HAM makes that list) - think of MSC in 1996/7/8/9 vs the 2004 version - the former did a lot more for his reputation than the one where all he had to do is beat BAR (and BAR-Honda) ;)

A bit of a history lesson, in 2017 Vettel was only 3 points behind Hamilton in the WDC after 13 races, the next race he was on pole with Hamilton only 5th, Vettel then crashed out 3 cars at the start gifting Hamilton the win, from there Hamilton never looked back.

In 2018 Vettel was leading the WDC by 8 points after 10 races, he was then leading comfortably in Germany before he crashed out again gifting Hamilton the win, after that Hamilton never lost the lead in the WDC.

This is Hamilton only having his teammate to beat whilst giving a 4xWDC seemingly little credibility?


Your "history lesson" would make a lot more sense if you actually respond to what people are saying instead of parroting the same ideas in virtually every thread.

Maybe this lesson will be of benefit: https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/reading


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6869
A.J. wrote:
SR1 wrote:
HamsterTime wrote:
I think it's important to note that nearly all of Hamilton's WDC's have come in the turbo-hybrid era.

In this era all you really have to do to win the WDC is beat the guy in the other Merc.

How many of the current grid would beat Bottas in the same car? 40-70% of them? Are they All-Time Greats as well?


Did you have your head buried in the sand during 2017 & 2018? Ferrari had title challenging cars in both these years. Particularly 2018, the Ferrari car was a match for the Merc, arguably better.


The 2017 Merc was much better than the Ferrari, all things (including reliability) taken into account. 2018 was as much about HAM not making mistakes as it was about VET throwing it away (I distinctly remember HAM being salty at Silverstone after getting beaten, suggesting that Raikkonen had deliberately crashed into him - nothing but pressure - who knows how it would have been if VET had not bottled it up) - I would consider the cars to be roughly equal, with Merc having a slight edge overall.

I think the point of the argument is still a valid one - all Hamilton has had to do is beat the guy driving the other car, which he managed 2 out of 3 with ROS, and every time with BOT. These achievements are not what gets you classified as an all-time great (FWIW, I think HAM makes that list) - think of MSC in 1996/7/8/9 vs the 2004 version - the former did a lot more for his reputation than the one where all he had to do is beat BAR (and BAR-Honda) ;)

Strange logic. As has been mentioned; the Ferrari in 2017 and 2018 was absolutely on par with the Mercedes (perhaps being slightly worse in 2017 and a bit better in 2018). Likewise, back in 2008, the Ferrari was the better car. Further, when Michael was winning those titles, he didn't even have to beat the guy in the other car because that guy was never allowed to actually challenge him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:43 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2221
Location: Miami, Florida
^^^ LOL

But I do agree the Mercedes was not much better than Ferrari in 2017 & 2018. It was quite close in terms of performance and BOTH their lead drivers had only their teammates to beat and then one another. But the cars were so evenly matched that either team had a shot a poles and race wins at almost every race. Mistakes did cost Vettel dearly because in the races where he was slightly behind Hamilton, he tried everything in his arsenal to beat him and in doing so he pushed just that .03% over the limit and paid the price. But that doesn't designate the Mercedes as an all-dominant car in either season.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:29 pm
Posts: 2530
sandman1347 wrote:
A.J. wrote:
SR1 wrote:
HamsterTime wrote:
I think it's important to note that nearly all of Hamilton's WDC's have come in the turbo-hybrid era.

In this era all you really have to do to win the WDC is beat the guy in the other Merc.

How many of the current grid would beat Bottas in the same car? 40-70% of them? Are they All-Time Greats as well?


Did you have your head buried in the sand during 2017 & 2018? Ferrari had title challenging cars in both these years. Particularly 2018, the Ferrari car was a match for the Merc, arguably better.


The 2017 Merc was much better than the Ferrari, all things (including reliability) taken into account. 2018 was as much about HAM not making mistakes as it was about VET throwing it away (I distinctly remember HAM being salty at Silverstone after getting beaten, suggesting that Raikkonen had deliberately crashed into him - nothing but pressure - who knows how it would have been if VET had not bottled it up) - I would consider the cars to be roughly equal, with Merc having a slight edge overall.

I think the point of the argument is still a valid one - all Hamilton has had to do is beat the guy driving the other car, which he managed 2 out of 3 with ROS, and every time with BOT. These achievements are not what gets you classified as an all-time great (FWIW, I think HAM makes that list) - think of MSC in 1996/7/8/9 vs the 2004 version - the former did a lot more for his reputation than the one where all he had to do is beat BAR (and BAR-Honda) ;)

Strange logic. As has been mentioned; the Ferrari in 2017 and 2018 was absolutely on par with the Mercedes (perhaps being slightly worse in 2017 and a bit better in 2018). Likewise, back in 2008, the Ferrari was the better car. Further, when Michael was winning those titles, he didn't even have to beat the guy in the other car because that guy was never allowed to actually challenge him.


I would agree that they were very close in the first half of both seasons. But, after the summer break of both seasons, Ferrari were not a match for Mercedes. Ferrari's development progress throughout a season continues to be one of their main pitfalls.

_________________
"Always believe you will become the best, but never believe you have done so"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am
Posts: 234
sandman1347 wrote:
A.J. wrote:
SR1 wrote:
HamsterTime wrote:
I think it's important to note that nearly all of Hamilton's WDC's have come in the turbo-hybrid era.

In this era all you really have to do to win the WDC is beat the guy in the other Merc.

How many of the current grid would beat Bottas in the same car? 40-70% of them? Are they All-Time Greats as well?


Did you have your head buried in the sand during 2017 & 2018? Ferrari had title challenging cars in both these years. Particularly 2018, the Ferrari car was a match for the Merc, arguably better.


The 2017 Merc was much better than the Ferrari, all things (including reliability) taken into account. 2018 was as much about HAM not making mistakes as it was about VET throwing it away (I distinctly remember HAM being salty at Silverstone after getting beaten, suggesting that Raikkonen had deliberately crashed into him - nothing but pressure - who knows how it would have been if VET had not bottled it up) - I would consider the cars to be roughly equal, with Merc having a slight edge overall.

I think the point of the argument is still a valid one - all Hamilton has had to do is beat the guy driving the other car, which he managed 2 out of 3 with ROS, and every time with BOT. These achievements are not what gets you classified as an all-time great (FWIW, I think HAM makes that list) - think of MSC in 1996/7/8/9 vs the 2004 version - the former did a lot more for his reputation than the one where all he had to do is beat BAR (and BAR-Honda) ;)

Strange logic. As has been mentioned; the Ferrari in 2017 and 2018 was absolutely on par with the Mercedes (perhaps being slightly worse in 2017 and a bit better in 2018). Likewise, back in 2008, the Ferrari was the better car. Further, when Michael was winning those titles, he didn't even have to beat the guy in the other car because that guy was never allowed to actually challenge him.


I don't understand why you mention the part in bold as a response to my comment - my statement was that when MSC was fighting with an inferior car he did his reputation more good than when he was dominating the field in 2004 - quite literally the opposite intention of what you're arguing against.

RE: 2017 and 2018 - as I have already stated, the 2017 Ferrari was definitely not on par with the Mercedes taking the whole season into consideration - the 2018 one was, but VET imploded spectacularly post the summer break (and Ferrari lagged behind in the development race) to make it a one-horse race in the end.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 6:16 pm
Posts: 11
Schumacher forever#1 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
A.J. wrote:
SR1 wrote:
HamsterTime wrote:
I think it's important to note that nearly all of Hamilton's WDC's have come in the turbo-hybrid era.

In this era all you really have to do to win the WDC is beat the guy in the other Merc.

How many of the current grid would beat Bottas in the same car? 40-70% of them? Are they All-Time Greats as well?


Did you have your head buried in the sand during 2017 & 2018? Ferrari had title challenging cars in both these years. Particularly 2018, the Ferrari car was a match for the Merc, arguably better.


The 2017 Merc was much better than the Ferrari, all things (including reliability) taken into account. 2018 was as much about HAM not making mistakes as it was about VET throwing it away (I distinctly remember HAM being salty at Silverstone after getting beaten, suggesting that Raikkonen had deliberately crashed into him - nothing but pressure - who knows how it would have been if VET had not bottled it up) - I would consider the cars to be roughly equal, with Merc having a slight edge overall.

I think the point of the argument is still a valid one - all Hamilton has had to do is beat the guy driving the other car, which he managed 2 out of 3 with ROS, and every time with BOT. These achievements are not what gets you classified as an all-time great (FWIW, I think HAM makes that list) - think of MSC in 1996/7/8/9 vs the 2004 version - the former did a lot more for his reputation than the one where all he had to do is beat BAR (and BAR-Honda) ;)

Strange logic. As has been mentioned; the Ferrari in 2017 and 2018 was absolutely on par with the Mercedes (perhaps being slightly worse in 2017 and a bit better in 2018). Likewise, back in 2008, the Ferrari was the better car. Further, when Michael was winning those titles, he didn't even have to beat the guy in the other car because that guy was never allowed to actually challenge him.


I would agree that they were very close in the first half of both seasons. But, after the summer break of both seasons, Ferrari were not a match for Mercedes. Ferrari's development progress throughout a season continues to be one of their main pitfalls.


I continue to believe that Merc are sandbagging, have about 10 upgrades in reserve thanks to their vast resources, and only apply a couple if they need to half way through the season to ensure they win the WDC and WCC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:41 am
Posts: 204
Schumacher forever#1 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
A.J. wrote:
SR1 wrote:
HamsterTime wrote:
I think it's important to note that nearly all of Hamilton's WDC's have come in the turbo-hybrid era.

In this era all you really have to do to win the WDC is beat the guy in the other Merc.

How many of the current grid would beat Bottas in the same car? 40-70% of them? Are they All-Time Greats as well?


Did you have your head buried in the sand during 2017 & 2018? Ferrari had title challenging cars in both these years. Particularly 2018, the Ferrari car was a match for the Merc, arguably better.


The 2017 Merc was much better than the Ferrari, all things (including reliability) taken into account. 2018 was as much about HAM not making mistakes as it was about VET throwing it away (I distinctly remember HAM being salty at Silverstone after getting beaten, suggesting that Raikkonen had deliberately crashed into him - nothing but pressure - who knows how it would have been if VET had not bottled it up) - I would consider the cars to be roughly equal, with Merc having a slight edge overall.

I think the point of the argument is still a valid one - all Hamilton has had to do is beat the guy driving the other car, which he managed 2 out of 3 with ROS, and every time with BOT. These achievements are not what gets you classified as an all-time great (FWIW, I think HAM makes that list) - think of MSC in 1996/7/8/9 vs the 2004 version - the former did a lot more for his reputation than the one where all he had to do is beat BAR (and BAR-Honda) ;)

Strange logic. As has been mentioned; the Ferrari in 2017 and 2018 was absolutely on par with the Mercedes (perhaps being slightly worse in 2017 and a bit better in 2018). Likewise, back in 2008, the Ferrari was the better car. Further, when Michael was winning those titles, he didn't even have to beat the guy in the other car because that guy was never allowed to actually challenge him.


I would agree that they were very close in the first half of both seasons. But, after the summer break of both seasons, Ferrari were not a match for Mercedes. Ferrari's development progress throughout a season continues to be one of their main pitfalls.


I do think this "outdeveloped in the 2nd half" spiel gets overplayed. After the 2018 summer break (post Hungary), i'd argue the only races in the 2nd half where Merc were outright quickest were Russia and Abu Dhabi. Ferrari had the overall quicker car in Belgium & Monza. They were quicker than Merc in Mexico. Singapore and Japan are debatable (Vettel screwed up his qualifying attempts, especially so in Singapore where he was actually ahead of Lewis' lap at one point but then made a mistake & eased off).

Ferrari's 2-3 race upgrade issue often gets trotted out in mitigatation. Yet Merc's upgrade issues & how these detrimentally affected their races (USA, Brazil, and especially Mexico-with awful tyre degradation) often gets overlooked.

And was the SF71H & W09 really that close in the first half? To Refresh the memory, I took a quick look at the 2018 car thread. Of the first 14 races, analysts are quoting 10-4 or 9-5 to Ferrari. With Hamilton also having reliability issues, while Vettel had a bullet proof car, I'd hardly call that close.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14886&start=1960


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6869
SR1 wrote:
Schumacher forever#1 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
A.J. wrote:

The 2017 Merc was much better than the Ferrari, all things (including reliability) taken into account. 2018 was as much about HAM not making mistakes as it was about VET throwing it away (I distinctly remember HAM being salty at Silverstone after getting beaten, suggesting that Raikkonen had deliberately crashed into him - nothing but pressure - who knows how it would have been if VET had not bottled it up) - I would consider the cars to be roughly equal, with Merc having a slight edge overall.

I think the point of the argument is still a valid one - all Hamilton has had to do is beat the guy driving the other car, which he managed 2 out of 3 with ROS, and every time with BOT. These achievements are not what gets you classified as an all-time great (FWIW, I think HAM makes that list) - think of MSC in 1996/7/8/9 vs the 2004 version - the former did a lot more for his reputation than the one where all he had to do is beat BAR (and BAR-Honda) ;)

Strange logic. As has been mentioned; the Ferrari in 2017 and 2018 was absolutely on par with the Mercedes (perhaps being slightly worse in 2017 and a bit better in 2018). Likewise, back in 2008, the Ferrari was the better car. Further, when Michael was winning those titles, he didn't even have to beat the guy in the other car because that guy was never allowed to actually challenge him.


I would agree that they were very close in the first half of both seasons. But, after the summer break of both seasons, Ferrari were not a match for Mercedes. Ferrari's development progress throughout a season continues to be one of their main pitfalls.


I do think this "outdeveloped in the 2nd half" spiel gets overplayed. After the 2018 summer break (post Hungary), i'd argue the only races in the 2nd half where Merc were outright quickest were Russia and Abu Dhabi. Ferrari had the overall quicker car in Belgium & Monza. They were quicker than Merc in Mexico. Singapore and Japan are debatable (Vettel screwed up his qualifying attempts, especially so in Singapore where he was actually ahead of Lewis' lap at one point but then made a mistake & eased off).

Ferrari's 2-3 race upgrade issue often gets trotted out in mitigatation. Yet Merc's upgrade issues & how these detrimentally affected their races (USA, Brazil, and especially Mexico-with awful tyre degradation) often gets overlooked.

And was the SF71H & W09 really that close in the first half? To Refresh the memory, I took a quick look at the 2018 car thread. Of the first 14 races, analysts are quoting 10-4 or 9-5 to Ferrari. With Hamilton also having reliability issues, while Vettel had a bullet proof car, I'd hardly call that close.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14886&start=1960

100% agree. People couldn't wait to look for a chance to blame the car about 2018 but the bottom line was that Hamilton pulled clear of Vettel during a period of time when Ferrari were clearly quicker. In races like Germany, Hungary, Monza, etc. Vettel and/or Ferrari made loads of mistakes and Hamilton performed brilliantly. It just kills some people to acknowledge that. On the season, Ferrari were faster than Mercedes in more races than not. You simply cannot win the title when you make that many mistakes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6869
HamsterTime wrote:
Schumacher forever#1 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
A.J. wrote:

The 2017 Merc was much better than the Ferrari, all things (including reliability) taken into account. 2018 was as much about HAM not making mistakes as it was about VET throwing it away (I distinctly remember HAM being salty at Silverstone after getting beaten, suggesting that Raikkonen had deliberately crashed into him - nothing but pressure - who knows how it would have been if VET had not bottled it up) - I would consider the cars to be roughly equal, with Merc having a slight edge overall.

I think the point of the argument is still a valid one - all Hamilton has had to do is beat the guy driving the other car, which he managed 2 out of 3 with ROS, and every time with BOT. These achievements are not what gets you classified as an all-time great (FWIW, I think HAM makes that list) - think of MSC in 1996/7/8/9 vs the 2004 version - the former did a lot more for his reputation than the one where all he had to do is beat BAR (and BAR-Honda) ;)

Strange logic. As has been mentioned; the Ferrari in 2017 and 2018 was absolutely on par with the Mercedes (perhaps being slightly worse in 2017 and a bit better in 2018). Likewise, back in 2008, the Ferrari was the better car. Further, when Michael was winning those titles, he didn't even have to beat the guy in the other car because that guy was never allowed to actually challenge him.


I would agree that they were very close in the first half of both seasons. But, after the summer break of both seasons, Ferrari were not a match for Mercedes. Ferrari's development progress throughout a season continues to be one of their main pitfalls.


I continue to believe that Merc are sandbagging, have about 10 upgrades in reserve thanks to their vast resources, and only apply a couple if they need to half way through the season to ensure they win the WDC and WCC.

Sandbagging? Really? That combined with your username make it clear how seriously one should take your commentary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 702
How individuals rate Vettel and Hamilton will influence how they rate the Ferrari and Mercedes in 2017 and 2018. Those who don’t rate Hamilton as highly will believe that the Mercedes was a bigger factor in those seasons and as a result the faster car. The picture becomes clearer every season though, and for the majority it is quickly becoming apparent that although Vettel is very good, he is a step behind the small group at the top, and with that there is a stronger argument in my eyes that the Ferrari had the edge over those two years. We won’t have a complete picture though until these two complete their careers – Vettel’s time with LeClerc is going to provide some great insight, and hopefully we have more match-ups to look forward too before they close-out their careers. Whatever your stance, you can’t simply look at the WCC points totals, as so many championship years and driver match-ups have shown us. You have to look closer at the races and how the drivers performed on track than that. Reliability and mistakes play a big part, teams switch resources to next seasons car at different stages, but also put simply, Hamilton was better and more consistent than Vettel over that time, and Bottas was better and more consistent than Kimi so they are going to come out with more points. I really hope we see Bottas switch to another top team because I think time will show him to be right at Vettel’s level in terms of overall ability. For now though fingers crossed for a couple of close races between Merc and Ferrari although I have my suspicions that only Monza will be close, and Mercedes will be too strong in Spa. Hope that Ferrari can prove me wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2633
Bottas is not as good as Vettel. I rate him as a Massa or Webber level driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 702
Despite him being quicker than Massa in his first few seasons in the sport. Would also imagine that Williams are less likely to favour one driver. Guess time will tell.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2633
Bottas was only quicker than Massa in qualifying. On race pace they were very even. Out of the 46 occasions both Williams cars finished, Massa and Bottas finished ahead 23 times each. If Massa did not have some absolutely horrendous luck in 2014, the points tally would have been very close too.

I rate them both at a very similar level, along with Webber.


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: F1 MERCENARY 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