planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:57 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic

Is there a clear winner between Hamilton and Vettel as drivers?
Hamilton is clearly better at this point. 81%  81%  [ 70 ]
Vettel is clearly better at this point. 1%  1%  [ 1 ]
It is still not clear who is the better driver at this point. 17%  17%  [ 15 ]
Total votes : 86
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14283
pokerman wrote:
Vandoorne clipped the wall 3 times on his lap and said it was a messy lap, also are we comparing a rookie with no known form in F1 with seasoned drivers with reputations of actually beating someone in F1.


So what could Alonso do to show he is performing better than Hamilton?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28750
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
At this point I think the Alonso vote has to be taken to task. Without doubt he's a great driver but to place him above Hamilton at this stage is to put undo weight on a couple of spirited underdog title challenges that fell a bit short. I don't think that his exploits are a match for Hamilton's and their brief time as teammates is another point in Hamilton's favor.

Yes, Hamilton's performance against Alonso when they were together is definitely a point in Hamilton's favour. But I don't agree that Alonso's exploits have been any worse. You need the equipment to make and sustain a challenge and in that respect Hamilton has enjoyed far more competitive machinery than Alonso has. I can see an argument for either tbh but in things like this there will always be a degree of subjectivity. The way Alonso has utterly trounced his team mates and made them look as though they were driving an inferior car to him has to count for something IMO. As mikeyg123 has said, he's currently in a position in the WDC that he really shouldn't be and that's not down to a single fluke result, either. He's made 7th/8th virtually his default finishing position.

That's not to say that Hamilton also hasn't performed admirably. But given their relative equipment levels I think Alonso can hold his head high with what he has achieved.

I think it's no coincidence the only teammate he couldn't trounce recently is one of Hamilton's ex teammates that being Button, and there lies the level of relative teammates that Alonso has had, Massa who got beat by Bottas, Kimi who was no quicker than Massa, then a few rookies.


That team mate also outscored Hamilton over one season and if I'm not mistaken, he outscored Hamilton overall in the three year period they were at Macca together (just Googled it, 672 for Button vs 657 for Hamilton). It is not a performance indication of course, but you can't say that Button beat Alonso over one year and disregard that he did the same to Hamilton... Unless I completely misunderstood your post!

Yes you did in the context of Alonso being better, I was making the point that Hamilton has had better teammates then we may throw in he didn't have #1 status against them and all the advantages that provides.

_________________
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: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28750
Lojik wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
and if I'm not mistaken, he outscored Hamilton overall in the three year period they were at Macca together (just Googled it, 672 for Button vs 657 for Hamilton).


This is my go to stat when I want to argue that stats without context are often worthless.

Indeed when McLaren incompetence/unreliability cost Hamilton 100 points in 2012 relative to Button.

_________________
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: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28750
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Vandoorne clipped the wall 3 times on his lap and said it was a messy lap, also are we comparing a rookie with no known form in F1 with seasoned drivers with reputations of actually beating someone in F1.


So what could Alonso do to show he is performing better than Hamilton?

Unless Hamilton himself performs poorly he can't, there's no discernible measure especially when Alonso is up against a driver who has basically lost his seat for substandard performances.

_________________
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: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5635
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Vandoorne clipped the wall 3 times on his lap and said it was a messy lap, also are we comparing a rookie with no known form in F1 with seasoned drivers with reputations of actually beating someone in F1.


So what could Alonso do to show he is performing better than Hamilton?

A far better question would be; what can Hamilton do for you to claim he's performing better than Alonso?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:05 pm
Posts: 292
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Vandoorne clipped the wall 3 times on his lap and said it was a messy lap, also are we comparing a rookie with no known form in F1 with seasoned drivers with reputations of actually beating someone in F1.


So what could Alonso do to show he is performing better than Hamilton?

A far better question would be; what can Hamilton do for you to claim he's performing better than Alonso?
Without being specific, EVERYTHING Hamilton does is better than Alonso. Check the poll results above. Alonso is not featured at all.

Geez, these are tiresome discussions about Alonso. Unfortunately, his move out of F1 will mean that the Alonso worship will continue to be asterisked by the "what if" sense of unfulfilled promises. Apparently we will have to suffer this forever, too.

Alonso was a masterful driver in his time, but that time is passed, and sorry, but his enthusiasm today is no substitute. Not to mention that his enthusiam today is second only to his inflated sense of self worth.

_________________
Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14283
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Vandoorne clipped the wall 3 times on his lap and said it was a messy lap, also are we comparing a rookie with no known form in F1 with seasoned drivers with reputations of actually beating someone in F1.


So what could Alonso do to show he is performing better than Hamilton?

A far better question would be; what can Hamilton do for you to claim he's performing better than Alonso?


Why would that be a far better question? The answer, whilst both continue to maximise their current situations, is the same to both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5635
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Vandoorne clipped the wall 3 times on his lap and said it was a messy lap, also are we comparing a rookie with no known form in F1 with seasoned drivers with reputations of actually beating someone in F1.


So what could Alonso do to show he is performing better than Hamilton?

A far better question would be; what can Hamilton do for you to claim he's performing better than Alonso?


Why would that be a far better question? The answer, whilst both continue to maximise their current situations, is the same to both.

No it's not the same. The degree of difficulty is completely different. The competition is stronger at the front and the pressure is far greater. If winning a ton of races and championships doesn't move the meter for you, what would? Honestly, I'm asking you that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14283
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Vandoorne clipped the wall 3 times on his lap and said it was a messy lap, also are we comparing a rookie with no known form in F1 with seasoned drivers with reputations of actually beating someone in F1.


So what could Alonso do to show he is performing better than Hamilton?

A far better question would be; what can Hamilton do for you to claim he's performing better than Alonso?


Why would that be a far better question? The answer, whilst both continue to maximise their current situations, is the same to both.

No it's not the same. The degree of difficulty is completely different. The competition is stronger at the front and the pressure is far greater. If winning a ton of races and championships doesn't move the meter for you, what would? Honestly, I'm asking you that.


It does. It moves him closer to Alonso IMO but as Alonso hasn't had the opportunity to do the same you can't compare. Why would you assume Alonso couldn't.

I also have to say I pretty much discount races and championships won between 2014-16 as any indication of greatness. No competition.

For me to put Hamilton ahead of Alonso he'd have to do things I don't think Alonso could do. That's a very high bar. I think with Hmilton's success you could argue he was "greater" but better? Not for me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6224
Location: Michigan, USA
MB-BOB wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
So what could Alonso do to show he is performing better than Hamilton?

Without being specific, EVERYTHING Hamilton does is better than Alonso. Check the poll results above. Alonso is not featured at all.

This poll was made by an Alonso fan, and the fact that he's not featured is in no way an indication that I think he's clearly not the best! ;)

The reason I made this poll is that Hamilton vs. Vettel is considered the defining rivalry of this era, but I've had the impression for at least these last two years that it's not actually a question between the two of them. It turns out that 80%+ of people on this forum agree.

If the question was Alonso vs. Hamilton, then I think anyone who's being fair and objective would have to check the third option, which would make for an uninteresting poll. It's simply been too long since Alonso and Hamilton raced each other in anything like equal cars.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5635
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

Why would that be a far better question? The answer, whilst both continue to maximise their current situations, is the same to both.

No it's not the same. The degree of difficulty is completely different. The competition is stronger at the front and the pressure is far greater. If winning a ton of races and championships doesn't move the meter for you, what would? Honestly, I'm asking you that.


It does. It moves him closer to Alonso IMO but as Alonso hasn't had the opportunity to do the same you can't compare. Why would you assume Alonso couldn't.

I also have to say I pretty much discount races and championships won between 2014-16 as any indication of greatness. No competition.

For me to put Hamilton ahead of Alonso he'd have to do things I don't think Alonso could do. That's a very high bar. I think with Hmilton's success you could argue he was "greater" but better? Not for me.

This kind of reasoning is the issue I have with your stance. I haven't seen Alonso do anything that I don't think Hamilton could do either but at the end of the day, what you or I think is insignificant. Dealing purely with hypotheticals means that the only thing you are assessing is what goes on between your own ears. You have to deal with what happens in the real world first and foremost and you can't give more credit for your own thoughts than for the drivers' actual achievements and performances.

It seems that your default position is that Alonso must be the best. For Hamilton to ascend beyond Alonso, for you, he would have to basically walk on water or perform other such miracles so obviously outside of the realm of what Alonso is capable of that it leaves no room for debate. That's just not a reasonable stance.

What the drivers are capable of isn't the only thing that makes them great. In fact it's secondary. The most important thing is what they actually DO with their abilities. Alonso very much could have won the WDC in 2010, Hamilton could have won it in 2016 and they both could have won it in 2007 but those were years where they didn't pull it off. This is the problem with getting stuck in the "Alonso would do this" and "Alonso would do that" pattern of reasoning. You assume that things will go his way when you make those statements but real life is unpredictable. Sometimes you get stuck behind Petrov while trying to secure the WDC. Sometimes your engine blows up in Malaysia while leading the race by a mile. You have to go by what they actually do. That's the only rationale that makes sense.

While Alonso has certainly had a great career, he has not had a better one than Lewis and he has not been as good in championship fights (especially down the stretch). In both of his WDC wins, he dominated the first half of the season and hung on to win at the end. In 2010 Vettel beat him by winning 4 of the last 5 races and in 2012 Alonso didn't win a single race in the second half of the season despite having the most wins of anyone through the first half.

By comparison, Hamilton certainly let the WDC slip away in his rookie year but he has won it in the final race twice. He won 6 of the last 7 in 2014 and he won the last 4 races in 2016 to take it to the wire in a close loss. In the battle with Sebastian Vettel these last two years, Lewis has pulled clear in the later stages of the season as the pressure mounted and, if he hangs on to win it this year, that will make 5 championships total! That doesn't mean anything to you? You say his titles when the car was dominant don't count for you despite the fact that he had a very dangerous opponent in the same car who was given equal status?

It's just too imbalanced. Perhaps if Alonso had been better when they were teammates you'd have a leg to stand on but he wasn't despite the fact that it was Hamilton's first year. At some point the fact that Hamilton has been dominating the sport for years aught to count for something.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1950
Vettel was probably better for the first half of 2017 but it's a stretch to say the same for 2018 especially if through Germany is regarded as the midway point.
Overall it's not close this year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1950
Alonso is too far down the field to judge and I can't seriously compare him to Hamilton but HAVE to give Hamilton the benefit of the doubt (even though I would choose the third poll option) because of the standard of performance he's producing for the highest stakes in the sport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14283
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

Why would that be a far better question? The answer, whilst both continue to maximise their current situations, is the same to both.

No it's not the same. The degree of difficulty is completely different. The competition is stronger at the front and the pressure is far greater. If winning a ton of races and championships doesn't move the meter for you, what would? Honestly, I'm asking you that.


It does. It moves him closer to Alonso IMO but as Alonso hasn't had the opportunity to do the same you can't compare. Why would you assume Alonso couldn't.

I also have to say I pretty much discount races and championships won between 2014-16 as any indication of greatness. No competition.

For me to put Hamilton ahead of Alonso he'd have to do things I don't think Alonso could do. That's a very high bar. I think with Hmilton's success you could argue he was "greater" but better? Not for me.

This kind of reasoning is the issue I have with your stance. I haven't seen Alonso do anything that I don't think Hamilton could do either

I disagree. You are welcome to your opinion and I don't think it's unreasonable but it's different to mine

but at the end of the day, what you or I think is insignificant. Dealing purely with hypotheticals means that the only thing you are assessing is what goes on between your own ears. You have to deal with what happens in the real world first and foremost and you can't give more credit for your own thoughts than for the drivers' actual achievements and performances.

To compare any drivers in F1 you are forced to use hypotheticals because no two drivers have the exact same situation in their careers. In regards to what happens in the real world how do we establish what performances are better? Was Hamilton's 2014 WDC a bigger indicator of quality than Alonso's own 2014 season? If we break it down to merely who wins and who doesn't then what is there to discuss? Fortunately F1 is a lot more interesting than that

It seems that your default position is that Alonso must be the best. For Hamilton to ascend beyond Alonso, for you, he would have to basically walk on water or perform other such miracles so obviously outside of the realm of what Alonso is capable of that it leaves no room for debate. That's just not a reasonable stance.

To be better than Alonso he'd have to perform better than Alonso. How is that unreasonable?

What the drivers are capable of isn't the only thing that makes them great.

I agree but are we talking about better or greater? They are different arguments.

In fact it's secondary. The most important thing is what they actually DO with their abilities. Alonso very much could have won the WDC in 2010, Hamilton could have won it in 2016 and they both could have won it in 2007 but those were years where they didn't pull it off. This is the problem with getting stuck in the "Alonso would do this" and "Alonso would do that" pattern of reasoning. You assume that things will go his way when you make those statements but real life is unpredictable. Sometimes you get stuck behind Petrov while trying to secure the WDC. Sometimes your engine blows up in Malaysia while leading the race by a mile. You have to go by what they actually do. That's the only rationale that makes sense.

I don't understand exactly what you are trying to say here? Obviously the very nature of F1 means you ahve to make your best guess. Rosberg beat Hamilton to the 2016 WDC. Do we just accept that Rosberg was the better driver or make a prediction on who would've been champion had the situations been equal based on Hamilton's general performance level?

While Alonso has certainly had a great career, he has not had a better one than Lewis and he has not been as good in championship fights (especially down the stretch). In both of his WDC wins, he dominated the first half of the season and hung on to win at the end. In 2010 Vettel beat him by winning 4 of the last 5 races and in 2012 Alonso didn't win a single race in the second half of the season despite having the most wins of anyone through the first half.

By comparison, Hamilton certainly let the WDC slip away in his rookie year but he has won it in the final race twice. He won 6 of the last 7 in 2014 and he won the last 4 races in 2016 to take it to the wire in a close loss. In the battle with Sebastian Vettel these last two years, Lewis has pulled clear in the later stages of the season as the pressure mounted and, if he hangs on to win it this year, that will make 5 championships total! That doesn't mean anything to you? You say his titles when the car was dominant don't count for you despite the fact that he had a very dangerous opponent in the same car who was given equal status?

They've both lost three close championships. I don't think the 2014 or 16 titles elevate Hamilton's status Had the Merc been 2 seconds a lap slower and he spent the seasons scraping for points rather than cruising to championships I wouldn't rate him any lower. To put it another way by 2013 I already considered Hamilton to be more than capable of winning a WDC in the 2014/15 circumstances so him doing it didn't change my opinion. It was already obvious he could

It's just too imbalanced. Perhaps if Alonso had been better when they were teammates you'd have a leg to stand on but he wasn't
despite the fact that it was Hamilton's first year. At some point the fact that Hamilton has been dominating the sport for years aught to count for something.

Both these things count for something. It's a huge reason of why I rate Hamilton as highly as I do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2960
Location: UK
For me the main reason why I would rate Alonso a nudge above Hamilton is consistency. Hamilton on top form is untouchable, but he also has a few weekends per year where he's just nowhere. I don't think Alonso would have struggled like Hamilton did in China and Canada this year for instance. Nor would he have crashed out in Brazil qualifying last year. On the other hand I don't think he would have been capable of the qualifying lap that Hamilton did last weekend, but for me consistency trumps those special flashes of brilliance when it comes to sustaining a championship challenge and I've never seen any other driver from this generation with the same ability that Alonso has to extract the absolute maximum from the car in every race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6671
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Lojik wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
and if I'm not mistaken, he outscored Hamilton overall in the three year period they were at Macca together (just Googled it, 672 for Button vs 657 for Hamilton).


This is my go to stat when I want to argue that stats without context are often worthless.


Yup, same pattern that happened with Alonso and Button (Button outscored Alonso in one season, was outscored over their tenure together), however it was presented as an argument above. Sounds like double standard, as worthless as these comparisons are

I think you actually completely missed the point that poker was making there

Most likely, after a month holiday this is first day at work and on PF1! I'll have to read it again


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28750
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Vandoorne clipped the wall 3 times on his lap and said it was a messy lap, also are we comparing a rookie with no known form in F1 with seasoned drivers with reputations of actually beating someone in F1.


So what could Alonso do to show he is performing better than Hamilton?

A far better question would be; what can Hamilton do for you to claim he's performing better than Alonso?


Why would that be a far better question? The answer, whilst both continue to maximise their current situations, is the same to both.

Indeed but the claim was that Alonso out performed Hamilton.

_________________
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: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:05 pm
Posts: 48
Location: Gateshead
j man wrote:
For me the main reason why I would rate Alonso a nudge above Hamilton is consistency. Hamilton on top form is untouchable, but he also has a few weekends per year where he's just nowhere. I don't think Alonso would have struggled like Hamilton did in China and Canada this year for instance. Nor would he have crashed out in Brazil qualifying last year. On the other hand I don't think he would have been capable of the qualifying lap that Hamilton did last weekend, but for me consistency trumps those special flashes of brilliance when it comes to sustaining a championship challenge and I've never seen any other driver from this generation with the same ability that Alonso has to extract the absolute maximum from the car in every race.


All drivers are going to have an odd weekend where for whatever reason it just doesn’t work for them.
In the 14 races this season ( excluding Austria when Lewis has a DNF) - How many times has he finished outside the podium ? - Twice .
Quite convent that those are the exact 2 examples that have been cited.
I’m sure Alonso would have been on the podium on all 14 races 🤔

_________________
25/05/2005


"It’s lights out and away we go”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5635
mikeyg123:

We can simply disagree and that's fine. There's just one thing from your post that I still want to address. You are trying to make a distinction between "better" and "greater". I agree with your thinking (that they are two different things) but I actually think all signs point to Hamilton having Alonso beat in both regards. He was quicker than Alonso in his first year (the one year where you know you will get faster moving forward). Do you honestly think that Alonso would be faster in the same car today? I certainly don't and I see no empirical reason for anyone to. The gaps between Alonso and Button weren't as big as the ones between Hamilton and Button and they all raced each other as drivers with several years experience.

That leaves consistency/avoiding mistakes. Lewis did have a period in 2011 where he made several errors in judgement on track but if you compare them at similar ages and points in their development, neither of them is mistake prone at all. Alonso had a sloppy 2010 but all drivers have periods like that in their career. The errors from Lewis actually came during a point in the 2011 season where the championship was already over with. In looking at their performances while in actual championship battles, Hamilton has been better. He almost never makes a mistake these days and his performance gets stronger as the season progresses. Alonso has been strongest early and has faded late; clinging on to his points lead as his rivals win races to hunt him down.

For me, there is no area where Alonso has Lewis beat anymore. Perhaps strategically Alonso's thinking is more advanced and he's more aware of the various possibilities (going by radio conversations I've heard) but that's about it. And that's not even talking about the biggest difference between them IMO, which is how they mesh with their teams. I see a very clear distinction between Hamilton's positive influence (most of the time) and Alonso's negative influence (far too often). Hamilton becomes a member of the team and he respects and values the other team members. Alonso tries to make it all about himself and has a domineering presence that undermines people.

Just my thoughts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14283
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123:

We can simply disagree and that's fine. There's just one thing from your post that I still want to address. You are trying to make a distinction between "better" and "greater". I agree with your thinking (that they are two different things) but I actually think all signs point to Hamilton having Alonso beat in both regards. He was quicker than Alonso in his first year (the one year where you know you will get faster moving forward). Do you honestly think that Alonso would be faster in the same car today? I certainly don't and I see no empirical reason for anyone to. The gaps between Alonso and Button weren't as big as the ones between Hamilton and Button and they all raced each other as drivers with several years experience.

That leaves consistency/avoiding mistakes. Lewis did have a period in 2011 where he made several errors in judgement on track but if you compare them at similar ages and points in their development, neither of them is mistake prone at all. Alonso had a sloppy 2010 but all drivers have periods like that in their career. The errors from Lewis actually came during a point in the 2011 season where the championship was already over with. In looking at their performances while in actual championship battles, Hamilton has been better. He almost never makes a mistake these days and his performance gets stronger as the season progresses. Alonso has been strongest early and has faded late; clinging on to his points lead as his rivals win races to hunt him down.

For me, there is no area where Alonso has Lewis beat anymore. Perhaps strategically Alonso's thinking is more advanced and he's more aware of the various possibilities (going by radio conversations I've heard) but that's about it. And that's not even talking about the biggest difference between them IMO, which is how they mesh with their teams. I see a very clear distinction between Hamilton's positive influence (most of the time) and Alonso's negative influence (far too often). Hamilton becomes a member of the team and he respects and values the other team members. Alonso tries to make it all about himself and has a domineering presence that undermines people.

Just my thoughts.


Hamilton's a positive influence when things go well. Remember when things weren't going that well in 2016? He basically said someone in the team must be sabotaging him. And that's with him being in by far the fastest car and winning most of the races. Can you imagine how he would deal with some of the situations Alonso has been in?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5635
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123:

We can simply disagree and that's fine. There's just one thing from your post that I still want to address. You are trying to make a distinction between "better" and "greater". I agree with your thinking (that they are two different things) but I actually think all signs point to Hamilton having Alonso beat in both regards. He was quicker than Alonso in his first year (the one year where you know you will get faster moving forward). Do you honestly think that Alonso would be faster in the same car today? I certainly don't and I see no empirical reason for anyone to. The gaps between Alonso and Button weren't as big as the ones between Hamilton and Button and they all raced each other as drivers with several years experience.

That leaves consistency/avoiding mistakes. Lewis did have a period in 2011 where he made several errors in judgement on track but if you compare them at similar ages and points in their development, neither of them is mistake prone at all. Alonso had a sloppy 2010 but all drivers have periods like that in their career. The errors from Lewis actually came during a point in the 2011 season where the championship was already over with. In looking at their performances while in actual championship battles, Hamilton has been better. He almost never makes a mistake these days and his performance gets stronger as the season progresses. Alonso has been strongest early and has faded late; clinging on to his points lead as his rivals win races to hunt him down.

For me, there is no area where Alonso has Lewis beat anymore. Perhaps strategically Alonso's thinking is more advanced and he's more aware of the various possibilities (going by radio conversations I've heard) but that's about it. And that's not even talking about the biggest difference between them IMO, which is how they mesh with their teams. I see a very clear distinction between Hamilton's positive influence (most of the time) and Alonso's negative influence (far too often). Hamilton becomes a member of the team and he respects and values the other team members. Alonso tries to make it all about himself and has a domineering presence that undermines people.

Just my thoughts.


Hamilton's a positive influence when things go well. Remember when things weren't going that well in 2016? He basically said someone in the team must be sabotaging him. And that's with him being in by far the fastest car and winning most of the races. Can you imagine how he would deal with some of the situations Alonso has been in?

I'd rather not imagine. I'd rather deal with what actually happens. I think Lewis made some comments that year that were on the harsh side but to have such lopsided reliability cost him the title was probably frustrating. Does that truly compare to Alonso's email/blackmail activities at Mclaren or his constant public berating of his team at Ferrari and then McLaren? Does it compare to his involvement with fixing a race at Renault? I think not. Look at the trajectory of the teams that they join. Neither Ferrari nor McLaren got stronger after signing Alonso. Mercedes hit an absolute purple patch after signing Hamilton.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14283
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123:

We can simply disagree and that's fine. There's just one thing from your post that I still want to address. You are trying to make a distinction between "better" and "greater". I agree with your thinking (that they are two different things) but I actually think all signs point to Hamilton having Alonso beat in both regards. He was quicker than Alonso in his first year (the one year where you know you will get faster moving forward). Do you honestly think that Alonso would be faster in the same car today? I certainly don't and I see no empirical reason for anyone to. The gaps between Alonso and Button weren't as big as the ones between Hamilton and Button and they all raced each other as drivers with several years experience.

That leaves consistency/avoiding mistakes. Lewis did have a period in 2011 where he made several errors in judgement on track but if you compare them at similar ages and points in their development, neither of them is mistake prone at all. Alonso had a sloppy 2010 but all drivers have periods like that in their career. The errors from Lewis actually came during a point in the 2011 season where the championship was already over with. In looking at their performances while in actual championship battles, Hamilton has been better. He almost never makes a mistake these days and his performance gets stronger as the season progresses. Alonso has been strongest early and has faded late; clinging on to his points lead as his rivals win races to hunt him down.

For me, there is no area where Alonso has Lewis beat anymore. Perhaps strategically Alonso's thinking is more advanced and he's more aware of the various possibilities (going by radio conversations I've heard) but that's about it. And that's not even talking about the biggest difference between them IMO, which is how they mesh with their teams. I see a very clear distinction between Hamilton's positive influence (most of the time) and Alonso's negative influence (far too often). Hamilton becomes a member of the team and he respects and values the other team members. Alonso tries to make it all about himself and has a domineering presence that undermines people.

Just my thoughts.


Hamilton's a positive influence when things go well. Remember when things weren't going that well in 2016? He basically said someone in the team must be sabotaging him. And that's with him being in by far the fastest car and winning most of the races. Can you imagine how he would deal with some of the situations Alonso has been in?

I'd rather not imagine. I'd rather deal with what actually happens. I think Lewis made some comments that year that were on the harsh side but to have such lopsided reliability cost him the title was probably frustrating. Does that truly compare to Alonso's email/blackmail activities at Mclaren or his constant public berating of his team at Ferrari and then McLaren? Does it compare to his involvement with fixing a race at Renault? I think not. Look at the trajectory of the teams that they join. Neither Ferrari nor McLaren got stronger after signing Alonso. Mercedes hit an absolute purple patch after signing Hamilton.


Some of those things get over blown. Alonso criticised Honda rather than Mclaren and there was hardly a constant criticism of Ferrari either. Domenicalli said in an interview recently that Alonso was easy to deal with and they are still friends. You have to imagine because they aren't in the same position. You can't fairly compare Hamilton moaning about his great situation against Alonso moaning about his terrible one. Surely you see that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2960
Location: UK
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123:

We can simply disagree and that's fine. There's just one thing from your post that I still want to address. You are trying to make a distinction between "better" and "greater". I agree with your thinking (that they are two different things) but I actually think all signs point to Hamilton having Alonso beat in both regards. He was quicker than Alonso in his first year (the one year where you know you will get faster moving forward). Do you honestly think that Alonso would be faster in the same car today? I certainly don't and I see no empirical reason for anyone to. The gaps between Alonso and Button weren't as big as the ones between Hamilton and Button and they all raced each other as drivers with several years experience.

That leaves consistency/avoiding mistakes. Lewis did have a period in 2011 where he made several errors in judgement on track but if you compare them at similar ages and points in their development, neither of them is mistake prone at all. Alonso had a sloppy 2010 but all drivers have periods like that in their career. The errors from Lewis actually came during a point in the 2011 season where the championship was already over with. In looking at their performances while in actual championship battles, Hamilton has been better. He almost never makes a mistake these days and his performance gets stronger as the season progresses. Alonso has been strongest early and has faded late; clinging on to his points lead as his rivals win races to hunt him down.

For me, there is no area where Alonso has Lewis beat anymore. Perhaps strategically Alonso's thinking is more advanced and he's more aware of the various possibilities (going by radio conversations I've heard) but that's about it. And that's not even talking about the biggest difference between them IMO, which is how they mesh with their teams. I see a very clear distinction between Hamilton's positive influence (most of the time) and Alonso's negative influence (far too often). Hamilton becomes a member of the team and he respects and values the other team members. Alonso tries to make it all about himself and has a domineering presence that undermines people.

Just my thoughts.


Hamilton's a positive influence when things go well. Remember when things weren't going that well in 2016? He basically said someone in the team must be sabotaging him. And that's with him being in by far the fastest car and winning most of the races. Can you imagine how he would deal with some of the situations Alonso has been in?

I'd rather not imagine. I'd rather deal with what actually happens. I think Lewis made some comments that year that were on the harsh side but to have such lopsided reliability cost him the title was probably frustrating. Does that truly compare to Alonso's email/blackmail activities at Mclaren or his constant public berating of his team at Ferrari and then McLaren? Does it compare to his involvement with fixing a race at Renault? I think not. Look at the trajectory of the teams that they join. Neither Ferrari nor McLaren got stronger after signing Alonso. Mercedes hit an absolute purple patch after signing Hamilton.

We've discussed this before but I really don't think you can attribute a team's general trajectory on the drivers they have, it is much more driven by how much investment they have put in on the engineering side and on rule changes allowing a refresh of the competitive order. We could also point out that Renault went on a significant upward trajectory after signing Alonso and then declined horribly after he left, while McLaren hardly improved over the years Hamilton was there. There are just as many instances that disprove your case as there are instances that support it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5635
j man wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123:

We can simply disagree and that's fine. There's just one thing from your post that I still want to address. You are trying to make a distinction between "better" and "greater". I agree with your thinking (that they are two different things) but I actually think all signs point to Hamilton having Alonso beat in both regards. He was quicker than Alonso in his first year (the one year where you know you will get faster moving forward). Do you honestly think that Alonso would be faster in the same car today? I certainly don't and I see no empirical reason for anyone to. The gaps between Alonso and Button weren't as big as the ones between Hamilton and Button and they all raced each other as drivers with several years experience.

That leaves consistency/avoiding mistakes. Lewis did have a period in 2011 where he made several errors in judgement on track but if you compare them at similar ages and points in their development, neither of them is mistake prone at all. Alonso had a sloppy 2010 but all drivers have periods like that in their career. The errors from Lewis actually came during a point in the 2011 season where the championship was already over with. In looking at their performances while in actual championship battles, Hamilton has been better. He almost never makes a mistake these days and his performance gets stronger as the season progresses. Alonso has been strongest early and has faded late; clinging on to his points lead as his rivals win races to hunt him down.

For me, there is no area where Alonso has Lewis beat anymore. Perhaps strategically Alonso's thinking is more advanced and he's more aware of the various possibilities (going by radio conversations I've heard) but that's about it. And that's not even talking about the biggest difference between them IMO, which is how they mesh with their teams. I see a very clear distinction between Hamilton's positive influence (most of the time) and Alonso's negative influence (far too often). Hamilton becomes a member of the team and he respects and values the other team members. Alonso tries to make it all about himself and has a domineering presence that undermines people.

Just my thoughts.


Hamilton's a positive influence when things go well. Remember when things weren't going that well in 2016? He basically said someone in the team must be sabotaging him. And that's with him being in by far the fastest car and winning most of the races. Can you imagine how he would deal with some of the situations Alonso has been in?

I'd rather not imagine. I'd rather deal with what actually happens. I think Lewis made some comments that year that were on the harsh side but to have such lopsided reliability cost him the title was probably frustrating. Does that truly compare to Alonso's email/blackmail activities at Mclaren or his constant public berating of his team at Ferrari and then McLaren? Does it compare to his involvement with fixing a race at Renault? I think not. Look at the trajectory of the teams that they join. Neither Ferrari nor McLaren got stronger after signing Alonso. Mercedes hit an absolute purple patch after signing Hamilton.

We've discussed this before but I really don't think you can attribute a team's general trajectory on the drivers they have, it is much more driven by how much investment they have put in on the engineering side and on rule changes allowing a refresh of the competitive order. We could also point out that Renault went on a significant upward trajectory after signing Alonso and then declined horribly after he left, while McLaren hardly improved over the years Hamilton was there. There are just as many instances that disprove your case as there are instances that support it.

When Hamilton joined McLaren, they hadn't won a title since the 90s. His second year, he won them their only WDC of the 21st century. When he joined Mercedes, they hadn't won a title since the 50s. His second year, they won the titles. They've dominated ever since. How is any of that an example that disproves my point?

You're right about Renault. They did shine while Alonso was there in his first stint. I guess it's all about the Singapore curse that people used to theorize about. Everywhere Alonso has gone since then has turned south.

For the most part I agree with the premise that the drivers don't control the trajectory of the team. They do contribute to it though. I look at the impact that both of them have on the culture of the organizations that they join and it's clear to me that Hamilton's is more positive and uplifting for the team. Alonso seems to want to create a cult where everyone worships and serves him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5635
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123:

We can simply disagree and that's fine. There's just one thing from your post that I still want to address. You are trying to make a distinction between "better" and "greater". I agree with your thinking (that they are two different things) but I actually think all signs point to Hamilton having Alonso beat in both regards. He was quicker than Alonso in his first year (the one year where you know you will get faster moving forward). Do you honestly think that Alonso would be faster in the same car today? I certainly don't and I see no empirical reason for anyone to. The gaps between Alonso and Button weren't as big as the ones between Hamilton and Button and they all raced each other as drivers with several years experience.

That leaves consistency/avoiding mistakes. Lewis did have a period in 2011 where he made several errors in judgement on track but if you compare them at similar ages and points in their development, neither of them is mistake prone at all. Alonso had a sloppy 2010 but all drivers have periods like that in their career. The errors from Lewis actually came during a point in the 2011 season where the championship was already over with. In looking at their performances while in actual championship battles, Hamilton has been better. He almost never makes a mistake these days and his performance gets stronger as the season progresses. Alonso has been strongest early and has faded late; clinging on to his points lead as his rivals win races to hunt him down.

For me, there is no area where Alonso has Lewis beat anymore. Perhaps strategically Alonso's thinking is more advanced and he's more aware of the various possibilities (going by radio conversations I've heard) but that's about it. And that's not even talking about the biggest difference between them IMO, which is how they mesh with their teams. I see a very clear distinction between Hamilton's positive influence (most of the time) and Alonso's negative influence (far too often). Hamilton becomes a member of the team and he respects and values the other team members. Alonso tries to make it all about himself and has a domineering presence that undermines people.

Just my thoughts.


Hamilton's a positive influence when things go well. Remember when things weren't going that well in 2016? He basically said someone in the team must be sabotaging him. And that's with him being in by far the fastest car and winning most of the races. Can you imagine how he would deal with some of the situations Alonso has been in?

I'd rather not imagine. I'd rather deal with what actually happens. I think Lewis made some comments that year that were on the harsh side but to have such lopsided reliability cost him the title was probably frustrating. Does that truly compare to Alonso's email/blackmail activities at Mclaren or his constant public berating of his team at Ferrari and then McLaren? Does it compare to his involvement with fixing a race at Renault? I think not. Look at the trajectory of the teams that they join. Neither Ferrari nor McLaren got stronger after signing Alonso. Mercedes hit an absolute purple patch after signing Hamilton.


Some of those things get over blown. Alonso criticised Honda rather than Mclaren and there was hardly a constant criticism of Ferrari either. Domenicalli said in an interview recently that Alonso was easy to deal with and they are still friends. You have to imagine because they aren't in the same position. You can't fairly compare Hamilton moaning about his great situation against Alonso moaning about his terrible one. Surely you see that?

The situations are a factor. I agree with you there. Alonso has had more to complain about with regards to the performance of his cars of late but this goes back a lot further than the last few years. His behavior at McLaren (who had a very strong car) was also pretty terrible. Anyway, that's my perception of what I see happening from the outside looking in.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:19 pm
Posts: 19
Location: Belfast
Some interesting comparisons being put forward by members, particular the Hamilton v Alonso scenario.

I think that Hamilton has maybe been a tad fortunate to land himself in a team with a pretty top performing car where as Alonso has also been a tad unlucky in finding himself in teams with under performing cars such as the McLaren of the last few years. I would rate them at pretty much on the same level but giving the nudge to Hamilton for actually achieving more. Placing Alonso ahead is assuming he can get the job done as opposed to Hamilton who actually has got the job done. Maybe if Alonso was in a better car, maybe he would have won more, maybe we wouldn't, we will never know. I still would rate both Alonso and Hamilton up there with the likes of Schumacher. Once they've both finished their F1 careers, it might be easier to make a more fairer comparison than now.

mikeyg123 wrote:
Hamilton's a positive influence when things go well. Remember when things weren't going that well in 2016? He basically said someone in the team must be sabotaging him. And that's with him being in by far the fastest car and winning most of the races. Can you imagine how he would deal with some of the situations Alonso has been in?


Alonso isn't particularly the perfect driver to highlight someone who is a positive influence on their team, especially as of late. Infact the general consensus seems to be that Alonso is in the situation he is in thanks to his own doing. He might be fast but his general attitude didn't do him any favours with the top teams in recent years.

Back to the topic at hand, comparing Vettel and Hamilton, at this point in time I'd personally rate Hamilton as better than Vettel. He has made so few mistakes in the last few years compared to Vettel and is more often than not on the ball in both qualifying and races. Like all F1 drivers, Hamilton does have his off days, but they seem to be few and far between. I think his battles with Rosberg have really made him a better driver. People seem happy to write off Hamilton's Mercedes titles because he had no competition which I think is unfair. When battling your teammate for a World Championship, the team is divided and you do not always get the best strategies, and the battling is more intense as there is no escape from it, even away from the race weekends. Battling another driver from an opposing team is maybe a tad easier as you can have the whole team behind you and get the best strategies, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5025
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

Why would that be a far better question? The answer, whilst both continue to maximise their current situations, is the same to both.

No it's not the same. The degree of difficulty is completely different. The competition is stronger at the front and the pressure is far greater. If winning a ton of races and championships doesn't move the meter for you, what would? Honestly, I'm asking you that.


It does. It moves him closer to Alonso IMO but as Alonso hasn't had the opportunity to do the same you can't compare. Why would you assume Alonso couldn't.

I also have to say I pretty much discount races and championships won between 2014-16 as any indication of greatness. No competition.

For me to put Hamilton ahead of Alonso he'd have to do things I don't think Alonso could do. That's a very high bar. I think with Hmilton's success you could argue he was "greater" but better? Not for me.

This kind of reasoning is the issue I have with your stance. I haven't seen Alonso do anything that I don't think Hamilton could do either but at the end of the day, what you or I think is insignificant. Dealing purely with hypotheticals means that the only thing you are assessing is what goes on between your own ears. You have to deal with what happens in the real world first and foremost and you can't give more credit for your own thoughts than for the drivers' actual achievements and performances.

It seems that your default position is that Alonso must be the best. For Hamilton to ascend beyond Alonso, for you, he would have to basically walk on water or perform other such miracles so obviously outside of the realm of what Alonso is capable of that it leaves no room for debate. That's just not a reasonable stance.

What the drivers are capable of isn't the only thing that makes them great. In fact it's secondary. The most important thing is what they actually DO with their abilities. Alonso very much could have won the WDC in 2010, Hamilton could have won it in 2016 and they both could have won it in 2007 but those were years where they didn't pull it off. This is the problem with getting stuck in the "Alonso would do this" and "Alonso would do that" pattern of reasoning. You assume that things will go his way when you make those statements but real life is unpredictable. Sometimes you get stuck behind Petrov while trying to secure the WDC. Sometimes your engine blows up in Malaysia while leading the race by a mile. You have to go by what they actually do. That's the only rationale that makes sense.

While Alonso has certainly had a great career, he has not had a better one than Lewis and he has not been as good in championship fights (especially down the stretch). In both of his WDC wins, he dominated the first half of the season and hung on to win at the end. In 2010 Vettel beat him by winning 4 of the last 5 races and in 2012 Alonso didn't win a single race in the second half of the season despite having the most wins of anyone through the first half.

By comparison, Hamilton certainly let the WDC slip away in his rookie year but he has won it in the final race twice. He won 6 of the last 7 in 2014 and he won the last 4 races in 2016 to take it to the wire in a close loss. In the battle with Sebastian Vettel these last two years, Lewis has pulled clear in the later stages of the season as the pressure mounted and, if he hangs on to win it this year, that will make 5 championships total! That doesn't mean anything to you? You say his titles when the car was dominant don't count for you despite the fact that he had a very dangerous opponent in the same car who was given equal status?

It's just too imbalanced. Perhaps if Alonso had been better when they were teammates you'd have a leg to stand on but he wasn't despite the fact that it was Hamilton's first year. At some point the fact that Hamilton has been dominating the sport for years aught to count for something.



Not going to address it all as it's been talked about but just on some of the comparisons on being better in championship run ins, how can you compare Alonso in the 3rd-4th fastest car in the run in for 2012 vs Lewis in the utterly dominant Mercedes starting no further back than 2nd in 2016? Or the 2010 Ferrari with the equally quick McLaren with 2 WDC's in them and a Red Bull 4ths quicker compared to again only fighting Rosberg in one of the most dominant cars in history in 2014?

Palmer would look better at handling a run in with both of those Lewis's situation than Alonso could in those same roles. One has to race multiple World Champions (2 in 2010 and 4 in 2012) and 2 midfielders in equal or quicker cars to reach the podium and the other has to just not crash. Literally.

Of course it's going to look better. Alonso's never had a car anything remotely like that to lean on in a championship run in and I think while you mention the pressures of fighting at the front you don't mention the release of pressure that comes with knowing you have such a car to lean on in the run in. 2006 the Ferrari was quicker in the second half and it was Schumacher he was racing. 2010 the Red Bull was quicker in all but a couple in the run in. 2007 is the only one he blew really as it was the most consistently quick car he had. 2012 he scored 7 podiums in 9 races (DNF'd the other two) in the run in while in at best the 3rd quickest car. You seem to forget Lewis had every bit as good a chance of beating Vettel during the Red Bull run as Alonso did so why not include those run ins instead of his 2 horse race turbo monsters of 2014+2016?

That's where the imbalance comes from, you're holding Alonso to a much higher standard so of course he's not going to impress you as much. If Ferrari find a trick and Seb finds the 4th advantage he had in 2010 and runs out every remaining race this year and wins the title then it's not going to make Lewis's run in look bad to anyone with any rational thought. I think most understand the role the cars play in F1.

The problem we have with the Lewis-Alonso comparison is they've only been in comparable cars 5 times and in 4 of them Alonso finished ahead and lost the other one in the same team on second place count back. And they've been on opposite sides of the grid since so impossible to compare. Points don't tell the whole story of course , I had it 3-2 personally because Lewis looked better in 2007+10 and Alonso in 2011,12 and 13. But the point is they've always been close while in comparable cars so why assume it's any different just because they got cars on opposite sides of the grid for the past few years?

That's just as big an assumption as anyone assuming Alonso would be doing what Lewis is doing.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1950
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

Why would that be a far better question? The answer, whilst both continue to maximise their current situations, is the same to both.

No it's not the same. The degree of difficulty is completely different. The competition is stronger at the front and the pressure is far greater. If winning a ton of races and championships doesn't move the meter for you, what would? Honestly, I'm asking you that.


It does. It moves him closer to Alonso IMO but as Alonso hasn't had the opportunity to do the same you can't compare. Why would you assume Alonso couldn't.

I also have to say I pretty much discount races and championships won between 2014-16 as any indication of greatness. No competition.

For me to put Hamilton ahead of Alonso he'd have to do things I don't think Alonso could do. That's a very high bar. I think with Hmilton's success you could argue he was "greater" but better? Not for me.

This kind of reasoning is the issue I have with your stance. I haven't seen Alonso do anything that I don't think Hamilton could do either but at the end of the day, what you or I think is insignificant. Dealing purely with hypotheticals means that the only thing you are assessing is what goes on between your own ears. You have to deal with what happens in the real world first and foremost and you can't give more credit for your own thoughts than for the drivers' actual achievements and performances.

It seems that your default position is that Alonso must be the best. For Hamilton to ascend beyond Alonso, for you, he would have to basically walk on water or perform other such miracles so obviously outside of the realm of what Alonso is capable of that it leaves no room for debate. That's just not a reasonable stance.

What the drivers are capable of isn't the only thing that makes them great. In fact it's secondary. The most important thing is what they actually DO with their abilities. Alonso very much could have won the WDC in 2010, Hamilton could have won it in 2016 and they both could have won it in 2007 but those were years where they didn't pull it off. This is the problem with getting stuck in the "Alonso would do this" and "Alonso would do that" pattern of reasoning. You assume that things will go his way when you make those statements but real life is unpredictable. Sometimes you get stuck behind Petrov while trying to secure the WDC. Sometimes your engine blows up in Malaysia while leading the race by a mile. You have to go by what they actually do. That's the only rationale that makes sense.

While Alonso has certainly had a great career, he has not had a better one than Lewis and he has not been as good in championship fights (especially down the stretch). In both of his WDC wins, he dominated the first half of the season and hung on to win at the end. In 2010 Vettel beat him by winning 4 of the last 5 races and in 2012 Alonso didn't win a single race in the second half of the season despite having the most wins of anyone through the first half.

By comparison, Hamilton certainly let the WDC slip away in his rookie year but he has won it in the final race twice. He won 6 of the last 7 in 2014 and he won the last 4 races in 2016 to take it to the wire in a close loss. In the battle with Sebastian Vettel these last two years, Lewis has pulled clear in the later stages of the season as the pressure mounted and, if he hangs on to win it this year, that will make 5 championships total! That doesn't mean anything to you? You say his titles when the car was dominant don't count for you despite the fact that he had a very dangerous opponent in the same car who was given equal status?

It's just too imbalanced. Perhaps if Alonso had been better when they were teammates you'd have a leg to stand on but he wasn't despite the fact that it was Hamilton's first year. At some point the fact that Hamilton has been dominating the sport for years aught to count for something.



Not going to address it all as it's been talked about but just on some of the comparisons on being better in championship run ins, how can you compare Alonso in the 3rd-4th fastest car in the run in for 2012 vs Lewis in the utterly dominant Mercedes starting no further back than 2nd in 2016? Or the 2010 Ferrari with the equally quick McLaren with 2 WDC's in them and a Red Bull 4ths quicker compared to again only fighting Rosberg in one of the most dominant cars in history in 2014?

Palmer would look better at handling a run in with both of those Lewis's situation than Alonso could in those same roles. One has to race multiple World Champions (2 in 2010 and 4 in 2012) and 2 midfielders in equal or quicker cars to reach the podium and the other has to just not crash. Literally.

Of course it's going to look better. Alonso's never had a car anything remotely like that to lean on in a championship run in and I think while you mention the pressures of fighting at the front you don't mention the release of pressure that comes with knowing you have such a car to lean on in the run in. 2006 the Ferrari was quicker in the second half and it was Schumacher he was racing. 2010 the Red Bull was quicker in all but a couple in the run in. 2007 is the only one he blew really as it was the most consistently quick car he had. 2012 he scored 7 podiums in 9 races (DNF'd the other two) in the run in while in at best the 3rd quickest car. You seem to forget Lewis had every bit as good a chance of beating Vettel during the Red Bull run as Alonso did so why not include those run ins instead of his 2 horse race turbo monsters of 2014+2016?

That's where the imbalance comes from, you're holding Alonso to a much higher standard so of course he's not going to impress you as much. If Ferrari find a trick and Seb finds the 4th advantage he had in 2010 and runs out every remaining race this year and wins the title then it's not going to make Lewis's run in look bad to anyone with any rational thought. I think most understand the role the cars play in F1.

The problem we have with the Lewis-Alonso comparison is they've only been in comparable cars 5 times and in 4 of them Alonso finished ahead and lost the other one in the same team on second place count back. And they've been on opposite sides of the grid since so impossible to compare. Points don't tell the whole story of course , I had it 3-2 personally because Lewis looked better in 2007+10 and Alonso in 2011,12 and 13. But the point is they've always been close while in comparable cars so why assume it's any different just because they got cars on opposite sides of the grid for the past few years?

That's just as big an assumption as anyone assuming Alonso would be doing what Lewis is doing.


Good stuff, but by your own admission you feel a prime of a driver is when they are approaching or are finally in their 30s, so by your theory Hamilton has been at his peak in recent years. I don't necessarily agree with that theory though as I think experience in itself is more important than age in itself, though the two may often line up in a sweet spot which coincides with one's earlier 30s.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5635
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

Why would that be a far better question? The answer, whilst both continue to maximise their current situations, is the same to both.

No it's not the same. The degree of difficulty is completely different. The competition is stronger at the front and the pressure is far greater. If winning a ton of races and championships doesn't move the meter for you, what would? Honestly, I'm asking you that.


It does. It moves him closer to Alonso IMO but as Alonso hasn't had the opportunity to do the same you can't compare. Why would you assume Alonso couldn't.

I also have to say I pretty much discount races and championships won between 2014-16 as any indication of greatness. No competition.

For me to put Hamilton ahead of Alonso he'd have to do things I don't think Alonso could do. That's a very high bar. I think with Hmilton's success you could argue he was "greater" but better? Not for me.

This kind of reasoning is the issue I have with your stance. I haven't seen Alonso do anything that I don't think Hamilton could do either but at the end of the day, what you or I think is insignificant. Dealing purely with hypotheticals means that the only thing you are assessing is what goes on between your own ears. You have to deal with what happens in the real world first and foremost and you can't give more credit for your own thoughts than for the drivers' actual achievements and performances.

It seems that your default position is that Alonso must be the best. For Hamilton to ascend beyond Alonso, for you, he would have to basically walk on water or perform other such miracles so obviously outside of the realm of what Alonso is capable of that it leaves no room for debate. That's just not a reasonable stance.

What the drivers are capable of isn't the only thing that makes them great. In fact it's secondary. The most important thing is what they actually DO with their abilities. Alonso very much could have won the WDC in 2010, Hamilton could have won it in 2016 and they both could have won it in 2007 but those were years where they didn't pull it off. This is the problem with getting stuck in the "Alonso would do this" and "Alonso would do that" pattern of reasoning. You assume that things will go his way when you make those statements but real life is unpredictable. Sometimes you get stuck behind Petrov while trying to secure the WDC. Sometimes your engine blows up in Malaysia while leading the race by a mile. You have to go by what they actually do. That's the only rationale that makes sense.

While Alonso has certainly had a great career, he has not had a better one than Lewis and he has not been as good in championship fights (especially down the stretch). In both of his WDC wins, he dominated the first half of the season and hung on to win at the end. In 2010 Vettel beat him by winning 4 of the last 5 races and in 2012 Alonso didn't win a single race in the second half of the season despite having the most wins of anyone through the first half.

By comparison, Hamilton certainly let the WDC slip away in his rookie year but he has won it in the final race twice. He won 6 of the last 7 in 2014 and he won the last 4 races in 2016 to take it to the wire in a close loss. In the battle with Sebastian Vettel these last two years, Lewis has pulled clear in the later stages of the season as the pressure mounted and, if he hangs on to win it this year, that will make 5 championships total! That doesn't mean anything to you? You say his titles when the car was dominant don't count for you despite the fact that he had a very dangerous opponent in the same car who was given equal status?

It's just too imbalanced. Perhaps if Alonso had been better when they were teammates you'd have a leg to stand on but he wasn't despite the fact that it was Hamilton's first year. At some point the fact that Hamilton has been dominating the sport for years aught to count for something.



Not going to address it all as it's been talked about but just on some of the comparisons on being better in championship run ins, how can you compare Alonso in the 3rd-4th fastest car in the run in for 2012 vs Lewis in the utterly dominant Mercedes starting no further back than 2nd in 2016? Or the 2010 Ferrari with the equally quick McLaren with 2 WDC's in them and a Red Bull 4ths quicker compared to again only fighting Rosberg in one of the most dominant cars in history in 2014?

Palmer would look better at handling a run in with both of those Lewis's situation than Alonso could in those same roles. One has to race multiple World Champions (2 in 2010 and 4 in 2012) and 2 midfielders in equal or quicker cars to reach the podium and the other has to just not crash. Literally.

Of course it's going to look better. Alonso's never had a car anything remotely like that to lean on in a championship run in and I think while you mention the pressures of fighting at the front you don't mention the release of pressure that comes with knowing you have such a car to lean on in the run in. 2006 the Ferrari was quicker in the second half and it was Schumacher he was racing. 2010 the Red Bull was quicker in all but a couple in the run in. 2007 is the only one he blew really as it was the most consistently quick car he had. 2012 he scored 7 podiums in 9 races (DNF'd the other two) in the run in while in at best the 3rd quickest car. You seem to forget Lewis had every bit as good a chance of beating Vettel during the Red Bull run as Alonso did so why not include those run ins instead of his 2 horse race turbo monsters of 2014+2016?

That's where the imbalance comes from, you're holding Alonso to a much higher standard so of course he's not going to impress you as much. If Ferrari find a trick and Seb finds the 4th advantage he had in 2010 and runs out every remaining race this year and wins the title then it's not going to make Lewis's run in look bad to anyone with any rational thought. I think most understand the role the cars play in F1.

The problem we have with the Lewis-Alonso comparison is they've only been in comparable cars 5 times and in 4 of them Alonso finished ahead and lost the other one in the same team on second place count back. And they've been on opposite sides of the grid since so impossible to compare. Points don't tell the whole story of course , I had it 3-2 personally because Lewis looked better in 2007+10 and Alonso in 2011,12 and 13. But the point is they've always been close while in comparable cars so why assume it's any different just because they got cars on opposite sides of the grid for the past few years?

That's just as big an assumption as anyone assuming Alonso would be doing what Lewis is doing.

The parts I bolded are absolute nonsense Lotus. Alonso had a team built around him and a #2 driver that he could simply get on the radio and have moved out of his way and whose strategy the team could compromise in order to help Alonso. Hamilton had to actually race his teammate (a WDC himself) and they took points off of each other frequently. Both were totally compromised by the fact that the team had to trip over itself to be "equal". Lewis also had to deal with a team that made more errors than any other team up front and had vastly more reliability issues than Alonso. To claim they were in similar situations is completely inaccurate. The 2010 Ferrari was faster than the Mclaren at 14 of the 19 races. That's even for you? The Ferrari was easily the second best car that year overall. In 2011 and 2012 the McLaren was quicker but far less reliable and with a comedy of errors from the team. If you even out reliability in 2012, Hamilton takes the WDC.

Vettel had the best car during the time you're talking about and Alonso had the #1 status and a pretty sharp team strategically but was often in a car that was off the pace. Hamilton and Button just stepped on each other's toes the whole time and had a joke of a team but pretty good performance from the cars. The fact is that they were not in similar situations at all in those years. Now 2007 was a very similar situation...

In 2005 and 2006 Alonso did the vast majority of his damage early and watched Raikkonen and Schumacher dominate the second half of the season. In 2010 Alonso looked like he had the title in the bag before Vettel won 4 of the last 5 races. You want to claim that Hamilton's performance at the end of those close seasons against Rosberg should be written off yet Rosebrg is a stronger driver than Raikkonen (the guy Alonso had to hold off for his first title in 2005) and he dominated Schumacher in the same car just a few years after Alonso held him off for his 2006 title. You also ignore this year and last year; where Hamilton has turned it up a notch in the second half of the season in a title race. I won't ignore how they handle pressure and perform when fighting for championships.


Last edited by sandman1347 on Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5025
Invade wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
No it's not the same. The degree of difficulty is completely different. The competition is stronger at the front and the pressure is far greater. If winning a ton of races and championships doesn't move the meter for you, what would? Honestly, I'm asking you that.


It does. It moves him closer to Alonso IMO but as Alonso hasn't had the opportunity to do the same you can't compare. Why would you assume Alonso couldn't.

I also have to say I pretty much discount races and championships won between 2014-16 as any indication of greatness. No competition.

For me to put Hamilton ahead of Alonso he'd have to do things I don't think Alonso could do. That's a very high bar. I think with Hmilton's success you could argue he was "greater" but better? Not for me.

This kind of reasoning is the issue I have with your stance. I haven't seen Alonso do anything that I don't think Hamilton could do either but at the end of the day, what you or I think is insignificant. Dealing purely with hypotheticals means that the only thing you are assessing is what goes on between your own ears. You have to deal with what happens in the real world first and foremost and you can't give more credit for your own thoughts than for the drivers' actual achievements and performances.

It seems that your default position is that Alonso must be the best. For Hamilton to ascend beyond Alonso, for you, he would have to basically walk on water or perform other such miracles so obviously outside of the realm of what Alonso is capable of that it leaves no room for debate. That's just not a reasonable stance.

What the drivers are capable of isn't the only thing that makes them great. In fact it's secondary. The most important thing is what they actually DO with their abilities. Alonso very much could have won the WDC in 2010, Hamilton could have won it in 2016 and they both could have won it in 2007 but those were years where they didn't pull it off. This is the problem with getting stuck in the "Alonso would do this" and "Alonso would do that" pattern of reasoning. You assume that things will go his way when you make those statements but real life is unpredictable. Sometimes you get stuck behind Petrov while trying to secure the WDC. Sometimes your engine blows up in Malaysia while leading the race by a mile. You have to go by what they actually do. That's the only rationale that makes sense.

While Alonso has certainly had a great career, he has not had a better one than Lewis and he has not been as good in championship fights (especially down the stretch). In both of his WDC wins, he dominated the first half of the season and hung on to win at the end. In 2010 Vettel beat him by winning 4 of the last 5 races and in 2012 Alonso didn't win a single race in the second half of the season despite having the most wins of anyone through the first half.

By comparison, Hamilton certainly let the WDC slip away in his rookie year but he has won it in the final race twice. He won 6 of the last 7 in 2014 and he won the last 4 races in 2016 to take it to the wire in a close loss. In the battle with Sebastian Vettel these last two years, Lewis has pulled clear in the later stages of the season as the pressure mounted and, if he hangs on to win it this year, that will make 5 championships total! That doesn't mean anything to you? You say his titles when the car was dominant don't count for you despite the fact that he had a very dangerous opponent in the same car who was given equal status?

It's just too imbalanced. Perhaps if Alonso had been better when they were teammates you'd have a leg to stand on but he wasn't despite the fact that it was Hamilton's first year. At some point the fact that Hamilton has been dominating the sport for years aught to count for something.



Not going to address it all as it's been talked about but just on some of the comparisons on being better in championship run ins, how can you compare Alonso in the 3rd-4th fastest car in the run in for 2012 vs Lewis in the utterly dominant Mercedes starting no further back than 2nd in 2016? Or the 2010 Ferrari with the equally quick McLaren with 2 WDC's in them and a Red Bull 4ths quicker compared to again only fighting Rosberg in one of the most dominant cars in history in 2014?

Palmer would look better at handling a run in with both of those Lewis's situation than Alonso could in those same roles. One has to race multiple World Champions (2 in 2010 and 4 in 2012) and 2 midfielders in equal or quicker cars to reach the podium and the other has to just not crash. Literally.

Of course it's going to look better. Alonso's never had a car anything remotely like that to lean on in a championship run in and I think while you mention the pressures of fighting at the front you don't mention the release of pressure that comes with knowing you have such a car to lean on in the run in. 2006 the Ferrari was quicker in the second half and it was Schumacher he was racing. 2010 the Red Bull was quicker in all but a couple in the run in. 2007 is the only one he blew really as it was the most consistently quick car he had. 2012 he scored 7 podiums in 9 races (DNF'd the other two) in the run in while in at best the 3rd quickest car. You seem to forget Lewis had every bit as good a chance of beating Vettel during the Red Bull run as Alonso did so why not include those run ins instead of his 2 horse race turbo monsters of 2014+2016?

That's where the imbalance comes from, you're holding Alonso to a much higher standard so of course he's not going to impress you as much. If Ferrari find a trick and Seb finds the 4th advantage he had in 2010 and runs out every remaining race this year and wins the title then it's not going to make Lewis's run in look bad to anyone with any rational thought. I think most understand the role the cars play in F1.

The problem we have with the Lewis-Alonso comparison is they've only been in comparable cars 5 times and in 4 of them Alonso finished ahead and lost the other one in the same team on second place count back. And they've been on opposite sides of the grid since so impossible to compare. Points don't tell the whole story of course , I had it 3-2 personally because Lewis looked better in 2007+10 and Alonso in 2011,12 and 13. But the point is they've always been close while in comparable cars so why assume it's any different just because they got cars on opposite sides of the grid for the past few years?

That's just as big an assumption as anyone assuming Alonso would be doing what Lewis is doing.


Good stuff, but by your own admission you feel a prime of a driver is when they are approaching or are finally in their 30s, so by your theory Hamilton has been at his peak in recent years. I don't necessarily agree with that theory though as I think experience in itself is more important than age in itself, though the two may often line up in a sweet spot which coincides with one's earlier 30s.


I do to be fair yeah, Brundle was talking about this yesterday and he mentioned a similar time period, 28-34 IIRC, and that's my long held opinion as well roughly but I'd have to admit that both Max and Alonso at the opposite ends of the spectrum make me reconsider that a bit with modern training regimes and such. I'm a recent NFL convert and to see Brady looking like he's still getting better at 41 is incredible which might be influencing me a bit as well.

I think you might well be right about experience being a bigger factor.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5025
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
No it's not the same. The degree of difficulty is completely different. The competition is stronger at the front and the pressure is far greater. If winning a ton of races and championships doesn't move the meter for you, what would? Honestly, I'm asking you that.


It does. It moves him closer to Alonso IMO but as Alonso hasn't had the opportunity to do the same you can't compare. Why would you assume Alonso couldn't.

I also have to say I pretty much discount races and championships won between 2014-16 as any indication of greatness. No competition.

For me to put Hamilton ahead of Alonso he'd have to do things I don't think Alonso could do. That's a very high bar. I think with Hmilton's success you could argue he was "greater" but better? Not for me.

This kind of reasoning is the issue I have with your stance. I haven't seen Alonso do anything that I don't think Hamilton could do either but at the end of the day, what you or I think is insignificant. Dealing purely with hypotheticals means that the only thing you are assessing is what goes on between your own ears. You have to deal with what happens in the real world first and foremost and you can't give more credit for your own thoughts than for the drivers' actual achievements and performances.

It seems that your default position is that Alonso must be the best. For Hamilton to ascend beyond Alonso, for you, he would have to basically walk on water or perform other such miracles so obviously outside of the realm of what Alonso is capable of that it leaves no room for debate. That's just not a reasonable stance.

What the drivers are capable of isn't the only thing that makes them great. In fact it's secondary. The most important thing is what they actually DO with their abilities. Alonso very much could have won the WDC in 2010, Hamilton could have won it in 2016 and they both could have won it in 2007 but those were years where they didn't pull it off. This is the problem with getting stuck in the "Alonso would do this" and "Alonso would do that" pattern of reasoning. You assume that things will go his way when you make those statements but real life is unpredictable. Sometimes you get stuck behind Petrov while trying to secure the WDC. Sometimes your engine blows up in Malaysia while leading the race by a mile. You have to go by what they actually do. That's the only rationale that makes sense.

While Alonso has certainly had a great career, he has not had a better one than Lewis and he has not been as good in championship fights (especially down the stretch). In both of his WDC wins, he dominated the first half of the season and hung on to win at the end. In 2010 Vettel beat him by winning 4 of the last 5 races and in 2012 Alonso didn't win a single race in the second half of the season despite having the most wins of anyone through the first half.

By comparison, Hamilton certainly let the WDC slip away in his rookie year but he has won it in the final race twice. He won 6 of the last 7 in 2014 and he won the last 4 races in 2016 to take it to the wire in a close loss. In the battle with Sebastian Vettel these last two years, Lewis has pulled clear in the later stages of the season as the pressure mounted and, if he hangs on to win it this year, that will make 5 championships total! That doesn't mean anything to you? You say his titles when the car was dominant don't count for you despite the fact that he had a very dangerous opponent in the same car who was given equal status?

It's just too imbalanced. Perhaps if Alonso had been better when they were teammates you'd have a leg to stand on but he wasn't despite the fact that it was Hamilton's first year. At some point the fact that Hamilton has been dominating the sport for years aught to count for something.



Not going to address it all as it's been talked about but just on some of the comparisons on being better in championship run ins, how can you compare Alonso in the 3rd-4th fastest car in the run in for 2012 vs Lewis in the utterly dominant Mercedes starting no further back than 2nd in 2016? Or the 2010 Ferrari with the equally quick McLaren with 2 WDC's in them and a Red Bull 4ths quicker compared to again only fighting Rosberg in one of the most dominant cars in history in 2014?

Palmer would look better at handling a run in with both of those Lewis's situation than Alonso could in those same roles. One has to race multiple World Champions (2 in 2010 and 4 in 2012) and 2 midfielders in equal or quicker cars to reach the podium and the other has to just not crash. Literally.

Of course it's going to look better. Alonso's never had a car anything remotely like that to lean on in a championship run in and I think while you mention the pressures of fighting at the front you don't mention the release of pressure that comes with knowing you have such a car to lean on in the run in. 2006 the Ferrari was quicker in the second half and it was Schumacher he was racing. 2010 the Red Bull was quicker in all but a couple in the run in. 2007 is the only one he blew really as it was the most consistently quick car he had. 2012 he scored 7 podiums in 9 races (DNF'd the other two) in the run in while in at best the 3rd quickest car. You seem to forget Lewis had every bit as good a chance of beating Vettel during the Red Bull run as Alonso did so why not include those run ins instead of his 2 horse race turbo monsters of 2014+2016?

That's where the imbalance comes from, you're holding Alonso to a much higher standard so of course he's not going to impress you as much. If Ferrari find a trick and Seb finds the 4th advantage he had in 2010 and runs out every remaining race this year and wins the title then it's not going to make Lewis's run in look bad to anyone with any rational thought. I think most understand the role the cars play in F1.

The problem we have with the Lewis-Alonso comparison is they've only been in comparable cars 5 times and in 4 of them Alonso finished ahead and lost the other one in the same team on second place count back. And they've been on opposite sides of the grid since so impossible to compare. Points don't tell the whole story of course , I had it 3-2 personally because Lewis looked better in 2007+10 and Alonso in 2011,12 and 13. But the point is they've always been close while in comparable cars so why assume it's any different just because they got cars on opposite sides of the grid for the past few years?

That's just as big an assumption as anyone assuming Alonso would be doing what Lewis is doing.

The parts I bolded are absolute nonsense Lotus. Alonso had a team built around him and a #2 driver that he could simply get on the radio and have moved out of his way and whose strategy the team could compromise in order to help Alonso. Hamilton had to actually race his teammate (a WDC himself) and they took points off of each other frequently. Both were totally compromised by the fact that the team had to trip over itself to be "equal". Lewis also had to deal with a team that made more errors than any other team up front and had vastly more reliability issues than Alonso. To claim they were in similar situations is completely inaccurate. The 2010 Ferrari was faster than the Mclaren at 14 of the 19 races. That's even for you? The Ferrari was easily the second best car that year overall. In 2011 and 2012 the McLaren was quicker but far less reliable and with a comedy of errors from the team. If you even out reliability in 2012, Hamilton takes the WDC.

Vettel had the best car during the time you're talking about and Alonso had the #1 status and a pretty sharp team strategically but was often in a car that was off the pace. Hamilton and Button just stepped on each other's toes the whole time and had a joke of a team but pretty good performance from the cars. The fact is that they were not in similar situations at all in those years. Now 2007 was a very similar situation...

In 2005 and 2006 Alonso did the vast majority of his damage early and watched Raikkonen and Schumacher dominate the second half of the season. In 2010 Alonso looked like he had the title in the bag before Vettel won 4 of the last 5 titles. You want to claim that Hamilton's performance at the end of those close seasons against Rosberg should be written off yet Rosebrg is a stronger driver than Raikkonen (the guy Alonso had to hold off for his first title in 2005) and he dominated Schumacher in the same car just a few years after Alonso held him off for his 2006 title. You also ignore this year and last year; where Hamilton has turned it up a notch in the second half of the season in a title race. I won't ignore how they handle pressure and perform when fighting for championships.


It's not nonsense, it happened. And I did say comparable cars rather than comparable situations but even if we ignore those 4 seasons and only look at 2007 the picture doesn't change any, it's still ridiculously close with Hughes having Alonso a smidge faster fuel corrected and ahead in the head 2 head as well, equal on points and only beaten on countback. As for a car being roughly equal despite being slower in 14 out of 19 well it can't be that surprising to you as you feel a car that got outqualified 15-5 was actually quicker last year, never mind roughly equal. And I don't think those figures are accurate anyway, it was more like 10-9 or 11-8 going by qualifying (To Ferrari).

You miss out they dominated in the second half or overturned a deficit in the second half with quicker cars which is quite important. That Alonso's cars were more competitive in the first half of 2005/6 is all we need to know. The removal of the J Damper and Ferrari improving is why he was less competitive in the second half rather than any wobbles in the run in for 06. That you were comparing them to Lewis's efforts in a dominant car during a run in against one guy was the issue in the first place, it's completely lop sided in Lewis's favour so of course it'll look better. And I don't want them written off, I just think it's a poor comparison to anything other than another dominant car comparison point.

The last two years I left out because they aren't dominant cars and so the comparison to the likes of 2005 and 2006 are fine as they're at least similar enough conditions with it being between two teams who alternated who had the best car any given race so it works. 2007 works too for the same reason. 2010 and 2012 don't for blindingly obvious reasons.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5635
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
This kind of reasoning is the issue I have with your stance. I haven't seen Alonso do anything that I don't think Hamilton could do either but at the end of the day, what you or I think is insignificant. Dealing purely with hypotheticals means that the only thing you are assessing is what goes on between your own ears. You have to deal with what happens in the real world first and foremost and you can't give more credit for your own thoughts than for the drivers' actual achievements and performances.

It seems that your default position is that Alonso must be the best. For Hamilton to ascend beyond Alonso, for you, he would have to basically walk on water or perform other such miracles so obviously outside of the realm of what Alonso is capable of that it leaves no room for debate. That's just not a reasonable stance.

What the drivers are capable of isn't the only thing that makes them great. In fact it's secondary. The most important thing is what they actually DO with their abilities. Alonso very much could have won the WDC in 2010, Hamilton could have won it in 2016 and they both could have won it in 2007 but those were years where they didn't pull it off. This is the problem with getting stuck in the "Alonso would do this" and "Alonso would do that" pattern of reasoning. You assume that things will go his way when you make those statements but real life is unpredictable. Sometimes you get stuck behind Petrov while trying to secure the WDC. Sometimes your engine blows up in Malaysia while leading the race by a mile. You have to go by what they actually do. That's the only rationale that makes sense.

While Alonso has certainly had a great career, he has not had a better one than Lewis and he has not been as good in championship fights (especially down the stretch). In both of his WDC wins, he dominated the first half of the season and hung on to win at the end. In 2010 Vettel beat him by winning 4 of the last 5 races and in 2012 Alonso didn't win a single race in the second half of the season despite having the most wins of anyone through the first half.

By comparison, Hamilton certainly let the WDC slip away in his rookie year but he has won it in the final race twice. He won 6 of the last 7 in 2014 and he won the last 4 races in 2016 to take it to the wire in a close loss. In the battle with Sebastian Vettel these last two years, Lewis has pulled clear in the later stages of the season as the pressure mounted and, if he hangs on to win it this year, that will make 5 championships total! That doesn't mean anything to you? You say his titles when the car was dominant don't count for you despite the fact that he had a very dangerous opponent in the same car who was given equal status?

It's just too imbalanced. Perhaps if Alonso had been better when they were teammates you'd have a leg to stand on but he wasn't despite the fact that it was Hamilton's first year. At some point the fact that Hamilton has been dominating the sport for years aught to count for something.



Not going to address it all as it's been talked about but just on some of the comparisons on being better in championship run ins, how can you compare Alonso in the 3rd-4th fastest car in the run in for 2012 vs Lewis in the utterly dominant Mercedes starting no further back than 2nd in 2016? Or the 2010 Ferrari with the equally quick McLaren with 2 WDC's in them and a Red Bull 4ths quicker compared to again only fighting Rosberg in one of the most dominant cars in history in 2014?

Palmer would look better at handling a run in with both of those Lewis's situation than Alonso could in those same roles. One has to race multiple World Champions (2 in 2010 and 4 in 2012) and 2 midfielders in equal or quicker cars to reach the podium and the other has to just not crash. Literally.

Of course it's going to look better. Alonso's never had a car anything remotely like that to lean on in a championship run in and I think while you mention the pressures of fighting at the front you don't mention the release of pressure that comes with knowing you have such a car to lean on in the run in. 2006 the Ferrari was quicker in the second half and it was Schumacher he was racing. 2010 the Red Bull was quicker in all but a couple in the run in. 2007 is the only one he blew really as it was the most consistently quick car he had. 2012 he scored 7 podiums in 9 races (DNF'd the other two) in the run in while in at best the 3rd quickest car. You seem to forget Lewis had every bit as good a chance of beating Vettel during the Red Bull run as Alonso did so why not include those run ins instead of his 2 horse race turbo monsters of 2014+2016?

That's where the imbalance comes from, you're holding Alonso to a much higher standard so of course he's not going to impress you as much. If Ferrari find a trick and Seb finds the 4th advantage he had in 2010 and runs out every remaining race this year and wins the title then it's not going to make Lewis's run in look bad to anyone with any rational thought. I think most understand the role the cars play in F1.

The problem we have with the Lewis-Alonso comparison is they've only been in comparable cars 5 times and in 4 of them Alonso finished ahead and lost the other one in the same team on second place count back. And they've been on opposite sides of the grid since so impossible to compare. Points don't tell the whole story of course , I had it 3-2 personally because Lewis looked better in 2007+10 and Alonso in 2011,12 and 13. But the point is they've always been close while in comparable cars so why assume it's any different just because they got cars on opposite sides of the grid for the past few years?

That's just as big an assumption as anyone assuming Alonso would be doing what Lewis is doing.

The parts I bolded are absolute nonsense Lotus. Alonso had a team built around him and a #2 driver that he could simply get on the radio and have moved out of his way and whose strategy the team could compromise in order to help Alonso. Hamilton had to actually race his teammate (a WDC himself) and they took points off of each other frequently. Both were totally compromised by the fact that the team had to trip over itself to be "equal". Lewis also had to deal with a team that made more errors than any other team up front and had vastly more reliability issues than Alonso. To claim they were in similar situations is completely inaccurate. The 2010 Ferrari was faster than the Mclaren at 14 of the 19 races. That's even for you? The Ferrari was easily the second best car that year overall. In 2011 and 2012 the McLaren was quicker but far less reliable and with a comedy of errors from the team. If you even out reliability in 2012, Hamilton takes the WDC.

Vettel had the best car during the time you're talking about and Alonso had the #1 status and a pretty sharp team strategically but was often in a car that was off the pace. Hamilton and Button just stepped on each other's toes the whole time and had a joke of a team but pretty good performance from the cars. The fact is that they were not in similar situations at all in those years. Now 2007 was a very similar situation...

In 2005 and 2006 Alonso did the vast majority of his damage early and watched Raikkonen and Schumacher dominate the second half of the season. In 2010 Alonso looked like he had the title in the bag before Vettel won 4 of the last 5 titles. You want to claim that Hamilton's performance at the end of those close seasons against Rosberg should be written off yet Rosebrg is a stronger driver than Raikkonen (the guy Alonso had to hold off for his first title in 2005) and he dominated Schumacher in the same car just a few years after Alonso held him off for his 2006 title. You also ignore this year and last year; where Hamilton has turned it up a notch in the second half of the season in a title race. I won't ignore how they handle pressure and perform when fighting for championships.


It's not nonsense, it happened. And I did say comparable cars rather than comparable situations but even if we ignore those 4 seasons and only look at 2007 the picture doesn't change any, it's still ridiculously close with Hughes having Alonso a smidge faster fuel corrected and ahead in the head 2 head as well, equal on points and only beaten on countback. As for a car being roughly equal despite being slower in 14 out of 19 well it can't be that surprising to you as you feel a car that got outqualified 15-5 was actually quicker last year, never mind roughly equal. And I don't think those figures are accurate anyway, it was more like 10-9 or 11-8 going by qualifying (To Ferrari).

You miss out they dominated in the second half or overturned a deficit in the second half with quicker cars which is quite important. That Alonso's cars were more competitive in the first half of 2005/6 is all we need to know. The removal of the J Damper and Ferrari improving is why he was less competitive in the second half rather than any wobbles in the run in for 06. That you were comparing them to Lewis's efforts in a dominant car during a run in against one guy was the issue in the first place, it's completely lop sided in Lewis's favour so of course it'll look better. And I don't want them written off, I just think it's a poor comparison to anything other than another dominant car comparison point.

The last two years I left out because they aren't dominant cars and so the comparison to the likes of 2005 and 2006 are fine as they're at least similar enough conditions with it being between two teams who alternated who had the best car any given race so it works. 2007 works too for the same reason. 2010 and 2012 don't for blindingly obvious reasons.

Let's be clear about a few things. First of all, the pace of the car is just one element. If Heikki Kovaleinen had stayed at McLaren, you'd have a point in comparing Hamilton and Alonso's points totals during this window of 3-4 years that you seem to think are the only period of time that matters but the fact is that he didn't. As such, Hamilton's situation was not at all comparable on the level of looking at points. This is not something to sweep under the rug. If, for example, Roseberg were to have remained at Mercedes these last two years, Hamilton's chances of winning these titles would have decreased dramatically due to the simple fact that, when the Mercedes car was strongest, Hamilton wouldn't always be the one to truly capitalize. It also handcuffs you from a strategic standpoint because you have to be "fair" to both guys (which sometimes means compromising the faster guy in order to adhere to rules of engagement). It's simple mathematics. That's why Vettel was so upset after qualifying at Monza and it's why Alonso had a meltdown in 2007. Having #1 status is every bit as important as having a quick car. Losing points to your teammate (unless you have the dominant car) means losing the championship.

Secondly I already discussed your attempts to try to pass off this news article as some sort of authoritative assessment. What Hughes fails to mention is that, from the time they began alternating fuel strategy, Hamilton out-qualified Alonso 8-4 and had 6 pole positions to Alonso's 1 and 4 wins to Alonso's 2. Hamilton also firmly took control of the matchup for the vast majority of the season; with the points becoming artificially close after the disastrous last 2 races. Trying to pass off 2007 as a year where Alonso got the better of Hamilton is a joke frankly speaking.

Third, you wanting to discount Hamilton's success when in a dominant car is also not very sensible. Do we discount Senna's success in 1988? The pace gap between him and Prost was actually MUCH bigger than the gap between Hamilton and Rosebrg and the gap from McLaren to the next team was just as big. This is a common theme with the Alonso crowd; seeking to discredit the championships that others have won while talking up the non-championships for Alonso and blaming the car...

Oh and the 2010 Ferrari was simply faster than the McLaren. It had a vastly superior chassis to the McLaren and the pace difference was actually greater in the races. Qualifying results are NOT a way to separate the car from the driver. Never understood the thinking of people who seem to believe they are. 2010 is literally the only season in Hamilton's career where Alonso out-qualified him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5025
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
This kind of reasoning is the issue I have with your stance. I haven't seen Alonso do anything that I don't think Hamilton could do either but at the end of the day, what you or I think is insignificant. Dealing purely with hypotheticals means that the only thing you are assessing is what goes on between your own ears. You have to deal with what happens in the real world first and foremost and you can't give more credit for your own thoughts than for the drivers' actual achievements and performances.

It seems that your default position is that Alonso must be the best. For Hamilton to ascend beyond Alonso, for you, he would have to basically walk on water or perform other such miracles so obviously outside of the realm of what Alonso is capable of that it leaves no room for debate. That's just not a reasonable stance.

What the drivers are capable of isn't the only thing that makes them great. In fact it's secondary. The most important thing is what they actually DO with their abilities. Alonso very much could have won the WDC in 2010, Hamilton could have won it in 2016 and they both could have won it in 2007 but those were years where they didn't pull it off. This is the problem with getting stuck in the "Alonso would do this" and "Alonso would do that" pattern of reasoning. You assume that things will go his way when you make those statements but real life is unpredictable. Sometimes you get stuck behind Petrov while trying to secure the WDC. Sometimes your engine blows up in Malaysia while leading the race by a mile. You have to go by what they actually do. That's the only rationale that makes sense.

While Alonso has certainly had a great career, he has not had a better one than Lewis and he has not been as good in championship fights (especially down the stretch). In both of his WDC wins, he dominated the first half of the season and hung on to win at the end. In 2010 Vettel beat him by winning 4 of the last 5 races and in 2012 Alonso didn't win a single race in the second half of the season despite having the most wins of anyone through the first half.

By comparison, Hamilton certainly let the WDC slip away in his rookie year but he has won it in the final race twice. He won 6 of the last 7 in 2014 and he won the last 4 races in 2016 to take it to the wire in a close loss. In the battle with Sebastian Vettel these last two years, Lewis has pulled clear in the later stages of the season as the pressure mounted and, if he hangs on to win it this year, that will make 5 championships total! That doesn't mean anything to you? You say his titles when the car was dominant don't count for you despite the fact that he had a very dangerous opponent in the same car who was given equal status?

It's just too imbalanced. Perhaps if Alonso had been better when they were teammates you'd have a leg to stand on but he wasn't despite the fact that it was Hamilton's first year. At some point the fact that Hamilton has been dominating the sport for years aught to count for something.



Not going to address it all as it's been talked about but just on some of the comparisons on being better in championship run ins, how can you compare Alonso in the 3rd-4th fastest car in the run in for 2012 vs Lewis in the utterly dominant Mercedes starting no further back than 2nd in 2016? Or the 2010 Ferrari with the equally quick McLaren with 2 WDC's in them and a Red Bull 4ths quicker compared to again only fighting Rosberg in one of the most dominant cars in history in 2014?

Palmer would look better at handling a run in with both of those Lewis's situation than Alonso could in those same roles. One has to race multiple World Champions (2 in 2010 and 4 in 2012) and 2 midfielders in equal or quicker cars to reach the podium and the other has to just not crash. Literally.

Of course it's going to look better. Alonso's never had a car anything remotely like that to lean on in a championship run in and I think while you mention the pressures of fighting at the front you don't mention the release of pressure that comes with knowing you have such a car to lean on in the run in. 2006 the Ferrari was quicker in the second half and it was Schumacher he was racing. 2010 the Red Bull was quicker in all but a couple in the run in. 2007 is the only one he blew really as it was the most consistently quick car he had. 2012 he scored 7 podiums in 9 races (DNF'd the other two) in the run in while in at best the 3rd quickest car. You seem to forget Lewis had every bit as good a chance of beating Vettel during the Red Bull run as Alonso did so why not include those run ins instead of his 2 horse race turbo monsters of 2014+2016?

That's where the imbalance comes from, you're holding Alonso to a much higher standard so of course he's not going to impress you as much. If Ferrari find a trick and Seb finds the 4th advantage he had in 2010 and runs out every remaining race this year and wins the title then it's not going to make Lewis's run in look bad to anyone with any rational thought. I think most understand the role the cars play in F1.

The problem we have with the Lewis-Alonso comparison is they've only been in comparable cars 5 times and in 4 of them Alonso finished ahead and lost the other one in the same team on second place count back. And they've been on opposite sides of the grid since so impossible to compare. Points don't tell the whole story of course , I had it 3-2 personally because Lewis looked better in 2007+10 and Alonso in 2011,12 and 13. But the point is they've always been close while in comparable cars so why assume it's any different just because they got cars on opposite sides of the grid for the past few years?

That's just as big an assumption as anyone assuming Alonso would be doing what Lewis is doing.

The parts I bolded are absolute nonsense Lotus. Alonso had a team built around him and a #2 driver that he could simply get on the radio and have moved out of his way and whose strategy the team could compromise in order to help Alonso. Hamilton had to actually race his teammate (a WDC himself) and they took points off of each other frequently. Both were totally compromised by the fact that the team had to trip over itself to be "equal". Lewis also had to deal with a team that made more errors than any other team up front and had vastly more reliability issues than Alonso. To claim they were in similar situations is completely inaccurate. The 2010 Ferrari was faster than the Mclaren at 14 of the 19 races. That's even for you? The Ferrari was easily the second best car that year overall. In 2011 and 2012 the McLaren was quicker but far less reliable and with a comedy of errors from the team. If you even out reliability in 2012, Hamilton takes the WDC.

Vettel had the best car during the time you're talking about and Alonso had the #1 status and a pretty sharp team strategically but was often in a car that was off the pace. Hamilton and Button just stepped on each other's toes the whole time and had a joke of a team but pretty good performance from the cars. The fact is that they were not in similar situations at all in those years. Now 2007 was a very similar situation...

In 2005 and 2006 Alonso did the vast majority of his damage early and watched Raikkonen and Schumacher dominate the second half of the season. In 2010 Alonso looked like he had the title in the bag before Vettel won 4 of the last 5 titles. You want to claim that Hamilton's performance at the end of those close seasons against Rosberg should be written off yet Rosebrg is a stronger driver than Raikkonen (the guy Alonso had to hold off for his first title in 2005) and he dominated Schumacher in the same car just a few years after Alonso held him off for his 2006 title. You also ignore this year and last year; where Hamilton has turned it up a notch in the second half of the season in a title race. I won't ignore how they handle pressure and perform when fighting for championships.


It's not nonsense, it happened. And I did say comparable cars rather than comparable situations but even if we ignore those 4 seasons and only look at 2007 the picture doesn't change any, it's still ridiculously close with Hughes having Alonso a smidge faster fuel corrected and ahead in the head 2 head as well, equal on points and only beaten on countback. As for a car being roughly equal despite being slower in 14 out of 19 well it can't be that surprising to you as you feel a car that got outqualified 15-5 was actually quicker last year, never mind roughly equal. And I don't think those figures are accurate anyway, it was more like 10-9 or 11-8 going by qualifying (To Ferrari).

You miss out they dominated in the second half or overturned a deficit in the second half with quicker cars which is quite important. That Alonso's cars were more competitive in the first half of 2005/6 is all we need to know. The removal of the J Damper and Ferrari improving is why he was less competitive in the second half rather than any wobbles in the run in for 06. That you were comparing them to Lewis's efforts in a dominant car during a run in against one guy was the issue in the first place, it's completely lop sided in Lewis's favour so of course it'll look better. And I don't want them written off, I just think it's a poor comparison to anything other than another dominant car comparison point.

The last two years I left out because they aren't dominant cars and so the comparison to the likes of 2005 and 2006 are fine as they're at least similar enough conditions with it being between two teams who alternated who had the best car any given race so it works. 2007 works too for the same reason. 2010 and 2012 don't for blindingly obvious reasons.

Let's be clear about a few things. First of all, the pace of the car is just one element. If Heikki Kovaleinen had stayed at McLaren, you'd have a point in comparing Hamilton and Alonso's points totals during this window of 3-4 years that you seem to think are the only period of time that matters but the fact is that he didn't. As such, Hamilton's situation was not at all comparable on the level of looking at points. This is not something to sweep under the rug. If, for example, Roseberg were to have remained at Mercedes these last two years, Hamilton's chances of winning these titles would have decreased dramatically due to the simple fact that, when the Mercedes car was strongest, Hamilton wouldn't always be the one to truly capitalize. It's simple mathematics. That's why Vettel was so upset after qualifying at Monza and it's why Alonso had a meltdown in 2007. Having #1 status is every bit as important as having a quick car. Losing points to your teammate (unless you have the dominant car) means losing the championship.

Secondly I already discussed your attempts to try to pass off this news article as some sort of authoritative assessment. What Hughes fails to mention is that, from the time they began alternating fuel strategy, Hamilton out-qualified Alonso 8-4 and had 6 pole positions to Alonso's 1. Hamilton also firmly took control of the matchup for the vast majority of the season; with the points becoming artificially close after the disastrous last 2 races. Trying to pass off 2007 as a year where Alonso got the better of Hamilton is a joke frankly speaking.

Third, you wanting to discount Hamilton's success when in a dominant car is also not very sensible. Do we discount Senna's success in 1988? The pace gap between him and Prost was actually MUCH bigger than the gap between Hamilton and Rosebrg and the gap from McLaren to the next team was just as big. This is a common theme with the Alonso crowd; seeking to discredit the championships that others have won while talking up the non-championships for Alonso and blaming the car...



Firstly, I was talking about comparable cars and yes it's just one element but it's a pretty important one. I did say points don't tell the whole story as well which is why I also talked about who I felt performed better and pointed out for example 2010 I felt Lewis got the better of it, irrespective of what the points said. But I also think the other years Alonso did have the edge on performance to go along with the points "win" which is why I mentioned it. If it was just about the points then I wouldn't mention it for some of the reasons given or I'd see it the other way like in 2010.

Secondly whether you like Hughes's piece or not doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning in a discussion involving what the article is specifically about. He states the info comes from the teams and only counts direct comparisons which seems fair enough to me. It's a lot fairer than pointing to poles which include the likes of Silverstone where Alonso was 4ths faster fuel corrected. If it was your turn for the preferential fuel strategy on a McLaren track, you got the pole. If it was your turn on a Ferrari track, you didn't. At least Hughes makes the attempt to keep it fair and use the fuel corrected results in directly comparable situations, for qualifying this means who got the better strategy is irrelevant as it's fuel corrected anyway. For the h2h though yeah the fuel preference makes a difference at the beginning of the season which is one of the reasons I don't think Alonso got the better of Lewis, quite the opposite. The point I'm making is the closeness of it whether we use the direct 2007 comparison or the only other 4 comparable seasons.

Thirdly, I don't know how many times I have to say it within one discussion but I'm not writing off or discounting Lewis's success in a dominant car, not even remotely so, I'm saying comparing his performance in a run in while in a dominant car in a two horse race and comparing it against a run in with the 2/3rd or 3rd/4th best car and increased competition is as lopsided a comparison as you can get with no wonder you get the impression you do from it.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5635
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Let's be clear about a few things. First of all, the pace of the car is just one element. If Heikki Kovaleinen had stayed at McLaren, you'd have a point in comparing Hamilton and Alonso's points totals during this window of 3-4 years that you seem to think are the only period of time that matters but the fact is that he didn't. As such, Hamilton's situation was not at all comparable on the level of looking at points. This is not something to sweep under the rug. If, for example, Roseberg were to have remained at Mercedes these last two years, Hamilton's chances of winning these titles would have decreased dramatically due to the simple fact that, when the Mercedes car was strongest, Hamilton wouldn't always be the one to truly capitalize. It also handcuffs you from a strategic standpoint because you have to be "fair" to both guys (which sometimes means compromising the faster guy in order to adhere to rules of engagement). It's simple mathematics. That's why Vettel was so upset after qualifying at Monza and it's why Alonso had a meltdown in 2007. Having #1 status is every bit as important as having a quick car. Losing points to your teammate (unless you have the dominant car) means losing the championship.

Secondly I already discussed your attempts to try to pass off this news article as some sort of authoritative assessment. What Hughes fails to mention is that, from the time they began alternating fuel strategy, Hamilton out-qualified Alonso 8-4 and had 6 pole positions to Alonso's 1 and 4 wins to Alonso's 2. Hamilton also firmly took control of the matchup for the vast majority of the season; with the points becoming artificially close after the disastrous last 2 races. Trying to pass off 2007 as a year where Alonso got the better of Hamilton is a joke frankly speaking.

Third, you wanting to discount Hamilton's success when in a dominant car is also not very sensible. Do we discount Senna's success in 1988? The pace gap between him and Prost was actually MUCH bigger than the gap between Hamilton and Rosebrg and the gap from McLaren to the next team was just as big. This is a common theme with the Alonso crowd; seeking to discredit the championships that others have won while talking up the non-championships for Alonso and blaming the car...

Oh and the 2010 Ferrari was simply faster than the McLaren. It had a vastly superior chassis to the McLaren and the pace difference was actually greater in the races. Qualifying results are NOT a way to separate the car from the driver. Never understood the thinking of people who seem to believe they are. 2010 is literally the only season in Hamilton's career where Alonso out-qualified him.



Firstly, I was talking about comparable cars and yes it's just one element but it's a pretty important one. I did say points don't tell the whole story as well which is why I also talked about who I felt performed better and pointed out for example 2010 I felt Lewis got the better of it, irrespective of what the points said. But I also think the other years Alonso did have the edge on performance to go along with the points "win" which is why I mentioned it. If it was just about the points then I wouldn't mention it for some of the reasons given or I'd see it the other way like in 2010.

Secondly whether you like Hughes's piece or not doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning in a discussion involving what the article is specifically about. He states the info comes from the teams and only counts direct comparisons which seems fair enough to me. It's a lot fairer than pointing to poles which include the likes of Silverstone where Alonso was 4ths faster fuel corrected. If it was your turn for the preferential fuel strategy on a McLaren track, you got the pole. If it was your turn on a Ferrari track, you didn't. At least Hughes makes the attempt to keep it fair and use the fuel corrected results in directly comparable situations, for qualifying this means who got the better strategy is irrelevant as it's fuel corrected anyway. For the h2h though yeah the fuel preference makes a difference at the beginning of the season which is one of the reasons I don't think Alonso got the better of Lewis, quite the opposite. The point I'm making is the closeness of it whether we use the direct 2007 comparison or the only other 4 comparable seasons.

Thirdly, I don't know how many times I have to say it within one discussion but I'm not writing off or discounting Lewis's success in a dominant car, not even remotely so, I'm saying comparing his performance in a run in while in a dominant car in a two horse race and comparing it against a run in with the 2/3rd or 3rd/4th best car and increased competition is as lopsided a comparison as you can get with no wonder you get the impression you do from it.

Any form of fuel correction is an estimate and is not accurate and, if you actually pay attention to Hughes' methodology, it's highly questionable in terms of what he includes/excludes. Did you actually watch that season? If so, are you trying to tell me that you feel Alonso got the better of the matchup? I just want to know how absurd we're getting here with all due respect.

That's not even the important part anyway. I marvel at how people perceive drivers as having good or bad seasons without realizing that much of what they are noticing is directly linked to whether or not they have a tough teammate to fight with. The perception that Alonso was particularly great at Ferrari is completely tied to his 100% control over Felipe Massa. The notion that he struggled in 2007 is 100% tied to his battle with Lewis. Likewise most people perceive Hamilton to be at his absolute peak right now but that's also largely tied to the fact that Bottas poses no real threat to him. For the first time since 2009 he's actually able to maximize his strategy and he also has the team 100% behind him rather than the split camps he's been in most of his career with other world champions.

It's not a small thing at all. It's absolutely huge and I marvel at how few people seem to realize it. We've seen the Sergio Perez effect damage multiple careers of his teammates. We've seen Raikkonen go from seeming like the fastest driver in F1 to seeming like a complete slouch relative to the top guys. This is why I cannot put Schumacher on the same footing with Senna personally. His whole career he had #1 status. Michael never had to beat another top driver in the same car at any point in his career. Having a tough teammate is like having a computer virus. At the best of times it's an annoyance but at the worst of times it's outright disastrous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5025
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:


Firstly, I was talking about comparable cars and yes it's just one element but it's a pretty important one. I did say points don't tell the whole story as well which is why I also talked about who I felt performed better and pointed out for example 2010 I felt Lewis got the better of it, irrespective of what the points said. But I also think the other years Alonso did have the edge on performance to go along with the points "win" which is why I mentioned it. If it was just about the points then I wouldn't mention it for some of the reasons given or I'd see it the other way like in 2010.

Secondly whether you like Hughes's piece or not doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning in a discussion involving what the article is specifically about. He states the info comes from the teams and only counts direct comparisons which seems fair enough to me. It's a lot fairer than pointing to poles which include the likes of Silverstone where Alonso was 4ths faster fuel corrected. If it was your turn for the preferential fuel strategy on a McLaren track, you got the pole. If it was your turn on a Ferrari track, you didn't. At least Hughes makes the attempt to keep it fair and use the fuel corrected results in directly comparable situations, for qualifying this means who got the better strategy is irrelevant as it's fuel corrected anyway. For the h2h though yeah the fuel preference makes a difference at the beginning of the season which is one of the reasons I don't think Alonso got the better of Lewis, quite the opposite. The point I'm making is the closeness of it whether we use the direct 2007 comparison or the only other 4 comparable seasons.

Thirdly, I don't know how many times I have to say it within one discussion but I'm not writing off or discounting Lewis's success in a dominant car, not even remotely so, I'm saying comparing his performance in a run in while in a dominant car in a two horse race and comparing it against a run in with the 2/3rd or 3rd/4th best car and increased competition is as lopsided a comparison as you can get with no wonder you get the impression you do from it.

Any form of fuel correction is an estimate and is not accurate and, if you actually pay attention to Hughes' methodology, it's highly questionable in terms of what he includes/excludes. Did you actually watch that season? If so, are you trying to tell me that you feel Alonso got the better of the matchup? I just want to know how absurd we're getting here with all due respect.

That's not even the important part anyway. I marvel at how people perceive drivers as having good or bad seasons without realizing that much of what they are noticing is directly linked to whether or not they have a tough teammate to fight with. The perception that Alonso was particularly great at Ferrari is completely tied to his 100% control over Felipe Massa. The notion that he struggled in 2007 is 100% tied to his battle with Lewis. Likewise most people perceive Hamilton to be at his absolute peak right now but that's also largely tied to the fact that Bottas poses no real threat to him. For the first time since 2009 he's actually able to maximize his strategy and he also has the team 100% behind him rather than the split camps he's been in most of his career with other world champions.

It's not a small thing at all. It's absolutely huge and I marvel at how few people seem to realize it. We've seen the Sergio Perez effect damage multiple careers of his teammates. We've seen Raikkonen go from seeming like the fastest driver in F1 to seeming like a complete slouch relative to the top guys. This is why I cannot put Schumacher on the same footing with Senna personally. His whole career he had #1 status. Michael never had to beat another top driver in the same car at any point in his career. Having a tough teammate is like having a computer virus. At the best of times it's an annoyance but at the worst of times it's outright disastrous.


The only absurd thing is how often I'm having to repeat myself and yes I'm aware of Hughes's methodology as I bothered to read the article before posting it as bizarre as that may sound and he explains it. He explains which ones he's left out and which sessions the data was taken from in the comments section and nothing jumps out as being fishy. You can obviously doubt him, that's your right of course. For the second time no, I don't think Alonso got the better of it in 2007, I do think it was as close as the stats suggest though and yes I was watching.

Having a comfortable team setting is very important I agree but no the perception Alonso's time at Ferrari being great isn't based on having control over Massa, at least not for me. It's based on his own performances during the time versus his main rivals more than any one single thing. I didn't need Button having a good season to tell me Lewis was on it in 2012 either. Drivers can have poorer seasons with a comfortable setting (2008) just as often as having a good one without (2012) in my experience. Other influences like the car's competitiveness and your rivals car competitiveness, where you are in the title picture and who you are fighting with are as big of influences on how a driver performs as his setting in the team imo but I do think it's important and the best way to approach this game for as long as it isn't a spec series, yeah.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6430
Location: Nebraska, USA
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Let's be clear about a few things. First of all, the pace of the car is just one element. If Heikki Kovaleinen had stayed at McLaren, you'd have a point in comparing Hamilton and Alonso's points totals during this window of 3-4 years that you seem to think are the only period of time that matters but the fact is that he didn't. As such, Hamilton's situation was not at all comparable on the level of looking at points. This is not something to sweep under the rug. If, for example, Roseberg were to have remained at Mercedes these last two years, Hamilton's chances of winning these titles would have decreased dramatically due to the simple fact that, when the Mercedes car was strongest, Hamilton wouldn't always be the one to truly capitalize. It also handcuffs you from a strategic standpoint because you have to be "fair" to both guys (which sometimes means compromising the faster guy in order to adhere to rules of engagement). It's simple mathematics. That's why Vettel was so upset after qualifying at Monza and it's why Alonso had a meltdown in 2007. Having #1 status is every bit as important as having a quick car. Losing points to your teammate (unless you have the dominant car) means losing the championship.

Secondly I already discussed your attempts to try to pass off this news article as some sort of authoritative assessment. What Hughes fails to mention is that, from the time they began alternating fuel strategy, Hamilton out-qualified Alonso 8-4 and had 6 pole positions to Alonso's 1 and 4 wins to Alonso's 2. Hamilton also firmly took control of the matchup for the vast majority of the season; with the points becoming artificially close after the disastrous last 2 races. Trying to pass off 2007 as a year where Alonso got the better of Hamilton is a joke frankly speaking.

Third, you wanting to discount Hamilton's success when in a dominant car is also not very sensible. Do we discount Senna's success in 1988? The pace gap between him and Prost was actually MUCH bigger than the gap between Hamilton and Rosebrg and the gap from McLaren to the next team was just as big. This is a common theme with the Alonso crowd; seeking to discredit the championships that others have won while talking up the non-championships for Alonso and blaming the car...

Oh and the 2010 Ferrari was simply faster than the McLaren. It had a vastly superior chassis to the McLaren and the pace difference was actually greater in the races. Qualifying results are NOT a way to separate the car from the driver. Never understood the thinking of people who seem to believe they are. 2010 is literally the only season in Hamilton's career where Alonso out-qualified him.



Firstly, I was talking about comparable cars and yes it's just one element but it's a pretty important one. I did say points don't tell the whole story as well which is why I also talked about who I felt performed better and pointed out for example 2010 I felt Lewis got the better of it, irrespective of what the points said. But I also think the other years Alonso did have the edge on performance to go along with the points "win" which is why I mentioned it. If it was just about the points then I wouldn't mention it for some of the reasons given or I'd see it the other way like in 2010.

Secondly whether you like Hughes's piece or not doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning in a discussion involving what the article is specifically about. He states the info comes from the teams and only counts direct comparisons which seems fair enough to me. It's a lot fairer than pointing to poles which include the likes of Silverstone where Alonso was 4ths faster fuel corrected. If it was your turn for the preferential fuel strategy on a McLaren track, you got the pole. If it was your turn on a Ferrari track, you didn't. At least Hughes makes the attempt to keep it fair and use the fuel corrected results in directly comparable situations, for qualifying this means who got the better strategy is irrelevant as it's fuel corrected anyway. For the h2h though yeah the fuel preference makes a difference at the beginning of the season which is one of the reasons I don't think Alonso got the better of Lewis, quite the opposite. The point I'm making is the closeness of it whether we use the direct 2007 comparison or the only other 4 comparable seasons.

Thirdly, I don't know how many times I have to say it within one discussion but I'm not writing off or discounting Lewis's success in a dominant car, not even remotely so, I'm saying comparing his performance in a run in while in a dominant car in a two horse race and comparing it against a run in with the 2/3rd or 3rd/4th best car and increased competition is as lopsided a comparison as you can get with no wonder you get the impression you do from it.

Any form of fuel correction is an estimate and is not accurate and, if you actually pay attention to Hughes' methodology, it's highly questionable in terms of what he includes/excludes. Did you actually watch that season? If so, are you trying to tell me that you feel Alonso got the better of the matchup? I just want to know how absurd we're getting here with all due respect.

That's not even the important part anyway. I marvel at how people perceive drivers as having good or bad seasons without realizing that much of what they are noticing is directly linked to whether or not they have a tough teammate to fight with. The perception that Alonso was particularly great at Ferrari is completely tied to his 100% control over Felipe Massa. The notion that he struggled in 2007 is 100% tied to his battle with Lewis. Likewise most people perceive Hamilton to be at his absolute peak right now but that's also largely tied to the fact that Bottas poses no real threat to him. For the first time since 2009 he's actually able to maximize his strategy and he also has the team 100% behind him rather than the split camps he's been in most of his career with other world champions.

It's not a small thing at all. It's absolutely huge and I marvel at how few people seem to realize it. We've seen the Sergio Perez effect damage multiple careers of his teammates. We've seen Raikkonen go from seeming like the fastest driver in F1 to seeming like a complete slouch relative to the top guys. This is why I cannot put Schumacher on the same footing with Senna personally. His whole career he had #1 status. Michael never had to beat another top driver in the same car at any point in his career. Having a tough teammate is like having a computer virus. At the best of times it's an annoyance but at the worst of times it's outright disastrous.


even if you keep stating opinion as fact, that doesn't make it so...period.
:(

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5635
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:


Firstly, I was talking about comparable cars and yes it's just one element but it's a pretty important one. I did say points don't tell the whole story as well which is why I also talked about who I felt performed better and pointed out for example 2010 I felt Lewis got the better of it, irrespective of what the points said. But I also think the other years Alonso did have the edge on performance to go along with the points "win" which is why I mentioned it. If it was just about the points then I wouldn't mention it for some of the reasons given or I'd see it the other way like in 2010.

Secondly whether you like Hughes's piece or not doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning in a discussion involving what the article is specifically about. He states the info comes from the teams and only counts direct comparisons which seems fair enough to me. It's a lot fairer than pointing to poles which include the likes of Silverstone where Alonso was 4ths faster fuel corrected. If it was your turn for the preferential fuel strategy on a McLaren track, you got the pole. If it was your turn on a Ferrari track, you didn't. At least Hughes makes the attempt to keep it fair and use the fuel corrected results in directly comparable situations, for qualifying this means who got the better strategy is irrelevant as it's fuel corrected anyway. For the h2h though yeah the fuel preference makes a difference at the beginning of the season which is one of the reasons I don't think Alonso got the better of Lewis, quite the opposite. The point I'm making is the closeness of it whether we use the direct 2007 comparison or the only other 4 comparable seasons.

Thirdly, I don't know how many times I have to say it within one discussion but I'm not writing off or discounting Lewis's success in a dominant car, not even remotely so, I'm saying comparing his performance in a run in while in a dominant car in a two horse race and comparing it against a run in with the 2/3rd or 3rd/4th best car and increased competition is as lopsided a comparison as you can get with no wonder you get the impression you do from it.

Any form of fuel correction is an estimate and is not accurate and, if you actually pay attention to Hughes' methodology, it's highly questionable in terms of what he includes/excludes. Did you actually watch that season? If so, are you trying to tell me that you feel Alonso got the better of the matchup? I just want to know how absurd we're getting here with all due respect.

That's not even the important part anyway. I marvel at how people perceive drivers as having good or bad seasons without realizing that much of what they are noticing is directly linked to whether or not they have a tough teammate to fight with. The perception that Alonso was particularly great at Ferrari is completely tied to his 100% control over Felipe Massa. The notion that he struggled in 2007 is 100% tied to his battle with Lewis. Likewise most people perceive Hamilton to be at his absolute peak right now but that's also largely tied to the fact that Bottas poses no real threat to him. For the first time since 2009 he's actually able to maximize his strategy and he also has the team 100% behind him rather than the split camps he's been in most of his career with other world champions.

It's not a small thing at all. It's absolutely huge and I marvel at how few people seem to realize it. We've seen the Sergio Perez effect damage multiple careers of his teammates. We've seen Raikkonen go from seeming like the fastest driver in F1 to seeming like a complete slouch relative to the top guys. This is why I cannot put Schumacher on the same footing with Senna personally. His whole career he had #1 status. Michael never had to beat another top driver in the same car at any point in his career. Having a tough teammate is like having a computer virus. At the best of times it's an annoyance but at the worst of times it's outright disastrous.


The only absurd thing is how often I'm having to repeat myself and yes I'm aware of Hughes's methodology as I bothered to read the article before posting it as bizarre as that may sound and he explains it. He explains which ones he's left out and which sessions the data was taken from in the comments section and nothing jumps out as being fishy. You can obviously doubt him, that's your right of course. For the second time no, I don't think Alonso got the better of it in 2007, I do think it was as close as the stats suggest though and yes I was watching.

Having a comfortable team setting is very important I agree but no the perception Alonso's time at Ferrari being great isn't based on having control over Massa, at least not for me. It's based on his own performances during the time versus his main rivals more than any one single thing. I didn't need Button having a good season to tell me Lewis was on it in 2012 either. Drivers can have poorer seasons with a comfortable setting (2008) just as often as having a good one without (2012) in my experience. Other influences like the car's competitiveness and your rivals car competitiveness, where you are in the title picture and who you are fighting with are as big of influences on how a driver performs as his setting in the team imo but I do think it's important and the best way to approach this game for as long as it isn't a spec series, yeah.

You are debunking your own positions here somewhat. You claim Hamilton's 2008 season was worse than his 2012 season despite having a non-competitive teammate in 2008 vs having Button in 2012. I agree that Hamilton's performance was near flawless in 2012 and that 2008 was perhaps his second most mistake-prone season. I also think his car in 2008 was second best while the 2012 car was match for the Red Bull on pace. None the less, he won the championship in 2008 and did not win it in 2012. Now, before you say it; not winning in 2012 was not much about Button at all and it was a lot more about the team itself but the fact is that he managed to win a WDC in a scruffy season largely because the whole team was focused on getting him there.

The thing is that I actually do think having the team behind you and in sync with you brings out the best in your performance. I do think Hamilton is performing at his very best at the moment and that Alonso was at his best in those situations too. Having internal turmoil and camps forming, distrust and paranoia is not good for any driver. Having that 100% support and not having to watch your back regarding your teammate frees you to fully focus on beating everyone else without tripping on internal politics and while employing whatever strategy you want to. When you ignore things like getting preference on pitstop strategy instead of having to wait your turn or being able to keep your teammate out on track to slow down the other guys or force them to cover him or simply being able to move your teammate out of your way when he's ahead of you on track instead of having to fight him; you are ignoring a MASSIVE advantage.

In other words, the situations that Hamilton and Alonso found themselves in following their split as teammates were night and day different. They were not comparable at all. Alonso was on a team that was 100% committed to maximizing his chances in every race; even at the expense of his teammate. Hamilton was on a team that was committed to providing an equal opportunity for both former WDC drivers; even at the expense of maximizing Lewis's results. When you claimed that they had the same chance at beating Vettel, you completely missed the mark.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5635
Blake wrote:

even if you keep stating opinion as fact, that doesn't make it so...period.
:(

Don't get upset. I can assure you that my opinions are only that (opinions). In fact I don't know what you're even referring to with your accusation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:35 am
Posts: 152
It does. It moves him closer to Alonso IMO but as Alonso hasn't had the opportunity to do the same you can't compare. Why would you assume Alonso couldn't.

I also have to say I pretty much discount races and championships won between 2014-16 as any indication of greatness. No competition.

For me to put Hamilton ahead of Alonso he'd have to do things I don't think Alonso could do. That's a very high bar. I think with Hmilton's success you could argue he was "greater" but better? Not for me.[/quote]


The thing that Alonso couldn't do that Hamilton could is win 4 (maybe 5) championships, nearly 80 pole positions, 60 odd wins etc. The other thing he couldn't do is beat Hamilton when they were team mates, and Hamilton was a rookie at that. Look, I rate Alonso very highly and he may be the only driver who could give LH a run for his money. But over a career statistics really do count and Lewis is cementing his position as the greatest driver of his generation at the very least. Alonso isn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:35 am
Posts: 152
j man wrote:
For me the main reason why I would rate Alonso a nudge above Hamilton is consistency. Hamilton on top form is untouchable, but he also has a few weekends per year where he's just nowhere. I don't think Alonso would have struggled like Hamilton did in China and Canada this year for instance. Nor would he have crashed out in Brazil qualifying last year. On the other hand I don't think he would have been capable of the qualifying lap that Hamilton did last weekend, but for me consistency trumps those special flashes of brilliance when it comes to sustaining a championship challenge and I've never seen any other driver from this generation with the same ability that Alonso has to extract the absolute maximum from the car in every race.


By consistency do you mean consistently setting pole positions, winning races and championships?


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: medgar, Zoue 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