planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Aug 25, 2019 12:17 pm

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: 6698
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: 670
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: 15603
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: 15603
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: 2478
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: 3987
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: 6698
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: 2310
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: 2310
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: 32145
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
2019: Currently 23rd

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: 2478
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: 2310
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: 3225
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: 6698
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: 6698
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: 2419
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: 2310
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Thumpah 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