planetf1.com

Exediron wrote:

Badgeronimous wrote:If the knowledgable posters from this forum, compiled a list of the best from the last 30yrs and we averaged each persons list out to make the PlanetF1 list..... We wouldn't be too far wrong.

Certainly in modern F1, if you found yourself as a top driver in the right car at the right time - you could compile mega stats.

Interested in starting such a thread? I might try it if not. It would need some limitation of scope - there have been hundreds of drivers over the last 30 years - but I like the concept.

Top 50 would be interesting.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote: I think you've done a very good job of creating a metric for the most successful drivers ever. Best though is a different story. I admire your effort.

Well to my mind 'most successful' still = 'best' I'm afraid. How can you claim to be the best at something if you haven't proved it by results?

Perhaps unlike many who have posted I don't have a 'favourite' driver so I am approaching the subject unemotionally. Since the goal of any F1 driver is to win races and championships I still conclude that the best drivers are those who have spent the highest proportion of their careers doing that. Of course luck plays a part as it does in any aspect of life, but that's no justification for saying the achievements of the lucky ones are lessened.

Answer me this.

If Hamilton hadn't overtaken Glock on the last lap at Interlagos in 08 would Felipe Massa have been a better driver for it?

Edit - I don't have a favourite driver.

Massa winning the title could have given him a boost in performance going forward, and could have led to Hamilton being viewed as a perennial after fluffing 07 n 08 titles!

You've deliberately misunderstood the point. It may have given Massa a platform but the actual act of Hamilton passing Glock doesn't effect how good an F1 driver Massa was.

Surely you can't make any informed judgement by using 'could have/should haves'. We all have differing views on those. All that's certin is the results..

RaggedMan wrote: Number of races per season, scoring systems, being allowed to take over your teammates car, etc. means that drivers can't be compared across era's.

I ignore the number of races in a season, and the points scoring method. The ultimate goals of winning GPs and championships remain unchanged, so I submit you can judge across time. You cant swap cars now, but with improved reliability you dont need to, and we still have team orders..

RaggedMan wrote: The OP showed Fangio at the top of the list and Schumacher second. Drivers separated by roughly 40 years, and countless changes in the sport, when they were active. Both were great drivers but there's no common criteria with which to objectively compare their careers, so we're only left to put our own subjective appraisals forward.

See above.

Tim3003 wrote:My method explicitly ignores the evolutionary changes in the sport

Argentum wrote:Your method does no such thing. It arbitrarily gives WDC twice the points of a second place? why? What if someone else thinks the ratio should be 3:1? Or 7:2? Or any other figure?

Fair enough, but I have to start somewhere!

Argentum wrote:What if someone says that earlier championships should be weighted because cars then broke down more often? You then multiply those results by the win percentage as if that would make an imprecise figure more precise.

Why would that be true? There was 1 champion per year just as there is now. Greater unreliability affected everyone the same.

Yes the win % may seem a bit arbitrary, but otherwise how do I downgrade those who drove on forever just to be on the grid like G Hill, or even Piquet - even Schumacher. My rule was that to win 2 titles in 8 years with 25/72 wins like Clark is a better record than Hill's 2 titles in 17 years and 14/179 GP wins. Win % seemed a good way to represent that.

I do think it would be worth adjusting for premature career ends like Clark, Moss, Senna. But how without benefitting D Hill too?

Argentum wrote:Of course, putting a middle-aged Fangio in a Merc next to Hamilton today would leave him slaughtered.

I don't doubt that for a second. However, If you were to put Hamilton alongside Fangio in a Mercedes W196, surrounded by fuel tanks, with no seatbelts, a leather or cork helmet and, at best, a straw bale between the cars and trees, then the answer may be a little less clear cut.

Indeed. So, you are now saying I can compare them?!

Blake wrote:

tim3003 wrote:
1) I'd say they do. Being a driver is about getting into the best car as much as winning. Eg Alonso, who wasted the last 4 years of his career. That's his fault, no-one else's..
2) Same in any other sport. You can't directly compare Federer with Laver as athletes, but in terms of their total titles you can compare their achievements. Whoever has more titles is better IMHO.

So Graham Hill and the same ability as Jim Clark, and Vettel is significantly better than Alonso. Done

The post was about trying to show is best - not who achieved the most - you just go to a list of drivers by count of titles if you want that.

So how do you define 'best'? Maybe you'd say quickest? But surely that's far harder to pin down than any results-based table, and it really is invalid to compare the outright speed of drivers across eras, just as it is to compare the speed of other athletes..

tim3003 wrote:

Tim3003 wrote:My method explicitly ignores the evolutionary changes in the sport

Argentum wrote:Your method does no such thing. It arbitrarily gives WDC twice the points of a second place? why? What if someone else thinks the ratio should be 3:1? Or 7:2? Or any other figure?

Fair enough, but I have to start somewhere!

Argentum wrote:What if someone says that earlier championships should be weighted because cars then broke down more often? You then multiply those results by the win percentage as if that would make an imprecise figure more precise.

Why would that be true? There was 1 champion per year just as there is now. Greater unreliability affected everyone the same.

Yes the win % may seem a bit arbitrary, but otherwise how do I downgrade those who drove on forever just to be on the grid like G Hill, or even Piquet - even Schumacher. My rule was that to win 2 titles in 8 years with 25/72 wins like Clark is a better record than Hill's 2 titles in 17 years and 14/179 GP wins. Win % seemed a good way to represent that.

I do think it would be worth adjusting for premature career ends like Clark, Moss, Senna. But how without benefitting D Hill too?

Argentum wrote:Of course, putting a middle-aged Fangio in a Merc next to Hamilton today would leave him slaughtered.

I don't doubt that for a second. However, If you were to put Hamilton alongside Fangio in a Mercedes W196, surrounded by fuel tanks, with no seatbelts, a leather or cork helmet and, at best, a straw bale between the cars and trees, then the answer may be a little less clear cut.

Indeed. So, you are now saying I can compare them?!

You need some kind of algorithm that shows how good the cars were a driver drove. For example, Hill drove 7 full seasons, 3 of which in WCC winning cars. Another lost a WCC narrowly.

Maybe % of WCC winners points as a measure of car strength. For that measure, Hill would have -
100%
100%
100%
82%
7%
22%
48%

The Arrows year aside, Hill drove great cars. They challanged for the title in 5 of his 7 years, although 1999 was in the hands of Frentzen. His cars give an arrange of 66% of the WCC winner. If it wasn't for the Arrows year that figure would be 75%

I've always argued that as the car is such an influential factor in the sport that it's not the numbers that count but how they're accrued.

Obvious example. 1988 season. Put Adrian Campos & Oscar Larrauri in those McLarens & i'll guarantee they'd have finished 1st & 2nd in the championship. Put Senna & Prost in the Zakspeed & they'd have scored the same points as Ghinzani & Schneider. So for those that believe stats are everything in F1 that'd mean Senna & Prost were far inferior to Campos & Larrauri.

For me I look to eliminate as much as possible the car factor when assessing where a driver sits on the GOAT pyramid. I look at thing like wet weather ability, quality of teammates & performance against them, skill level of the field, ability to get results in a car that would be considered above where it should be, ability to adapt to car idiosyncrasies (under steer, over steer etc), reliance on team orders, races classed as "great drives".

In the end it's all subjective & probably as flawed as any other method for one reason or another but to me at least the criteria above takes the focus off results that are centred around how good the car they're driving is & focuses it on the driver.

tim3003 wrote:

Argentum wrote:

tim3003 wrote:My method explicitly ignores the evolutionary changes in the sport

Your method does no such thing. It arbitrarily gives WDC twice the points of a second place? why? What if someone else thinks the ratio should be 3:1? Or 7:2? Or any other figure?

Fair enough, but I have to start somewhere!

I don't think it's enough to say you have to start somewhere. The weightings you give have to have some science behind them otherwise they're just arbitrary and they call any results into question, as Argentum was trying to explain. You can't accurately classify "best" by rolling dice on the criteria.

Someone earlier referenced POBRatings and I'd agree that his system seems the most scientific I've seen so far. I still think it has a degree of subjectivity but it tries its hardest to take the car into account, which I don't think your system does, not enough anyway. And before you think I'm just criticising let me say I couldn't do any better myself and if you re-labelled it as an attempt to classify the most successful drivers I'd probably be more on board with it. But as it is I don't think there's enough to convince me or others that "best" and "most successful" are interchangeable.

Johnson wrote:
You need some kind of algorithm that shows how good the cars were a driver drove. For example, Hill drove 7 full seasons, 3 of which in WCC winning cars. Another lost a WCC narrowly.

Maybe % of WCC winners points as a measure of car strength. For that measure, Hill would have -
100%
100%
100%
82%
7%
22%
48%

The Arrows year aside, Hill drove great cars. They challanged for the title in 5 of his 7 years, although 1999 was in the hands of Frentzen. His cars give an arrange of 66% of the WCC winner. If it wasn't for the Arrows year that figure would be 75%

Interesting idea. But how do you apply it to race wins, championships etc ?
Also, aren't you judging a driver in part against his own performance if he drove for the WCC winning team as Hill did in 93,94 & 96? (Not sure how you get 3 x 100% in a row above btw. Benetton won in 95.)

Chaps, it can't be done. POB System was meticulous but flawed as any other. The problem is there is no single marker to use as your baseline. Last year's Ferrari won't go down as a Championship one, but I think it would have been in the hands of Alonso or Hamilton. Barrichello was pretty handy but even he didn't always end up 2nd after Schumacher. So to say a driver was driving at x % of the cars potential is misleading - all you can say is the other guy went quicker, but that doesnt mean someone else couldn't have been quicker still.

DOLOMITE wrote:Chaps, it can't be done. POB System was meticulous but flawed as any other. The problem is there is no single marker to use as your baseline. Last year's Ferrari won't go down as a Championship one, but I think it would have been in the hands of Alonso or Hamilton. Barrichello was pretty handy but even he didn't always end up 2nd after Schumacher. So to say a driver was driving at x % of the cars potential is misleading - all you can say is the other guy went quicker, but that doesnt mean someone else couldn't have been quicker still.

All you can do is be the best of your era, and in F1 that's really difficult to decide because of the importance of the team and the machinery. I'm sure many here still have Alonso as better than both Hamilton and Vettel.

Invade wrote:All you can do is be the best of your era, and in F1 that's really difficult to decide because of the importance of the team and the machinery. I'm sure many here still have Alonso as better than both Hamilton and Vettel.

Do a poll.

Invade wrote:All you can do is be the best of your era, and in F1 that's really difficult to decide because of the importance of the team and the machinery. I'm sure many here still have Alonso as better than both Hamilton and Vettel.

yep, I'd be one of them

Zoue wrote:

Invade wrote:All you can do is be the best of your era, and in F1 that's really difficult to decide because of the importance of the team and the machinery. I'm sure many here still have Alonso as better than both Hamilton and Vettel.

yep, I'd be one of them

And I think that's a perfectly reasonable view too, despite the discrepancy in achievements.

Invade wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Invade wrote:All you can do is be the best of your era, and in F1 that's really difficult to decide because of the importance of the team and the machinery. I'm sure many here still have Alonso as better than both Hamilton and Vettel.

yep, I'd be one of them

And I think that's a perfectly reasonable view too, despite the discrepancy in achievements.

Alonso for me is definitely the best driver post Schumacher. I actually think he probably had surpassed Schumacher himself by 06.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Invade wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Invade wrote:All you can do is be the best of your era, and in F1 that's really difficult to decide because of the importance of the team and the machinery. I'm sure many here still have Alonso as better than both Hamilton and Vettel.

yep, I'd be one of them

And I think that's a perfectly reasonable view too, despite the discrepancy in achievements.

Alonso for me is definitely the best driver post Schumacher. I actually think he probably had surpassed Schumacher himself by 06.

Definitely? I would have thought there was at least a question mark between him and Hamilton. After all he failed to beat rookie Hamilton when he was the reigning back to back 2 time world champion. Now from thin air he is just better?

bonecrasher wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Invade wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Invade wrote:All you can do is be the best of your era, and in F1 that's really difficult to decide because of the importance of the team and the machinery. I'm sure many here still have Alonso as better than both Hamilton and Vettel.

yep, I'd be one of them

And I think that's a perfectly reasonable view too, despite the discrepancy in achievements.

Alonso for me is definitely the best driver post Schumacher. I actually think he probably had surpassed Schumacher himself by 06.

Definitely? I would have thought there was at least a question mark between him and Hamilton. After all he failed to beat rookie Hamilton when he was the reigning back to back 2 time world champion. Now from thin air he is just better?

Alosno had 17 seasons in F1. I'm judging him across all of them not just 1. I think you could argue across the last 12 months Hamilton is possibly getting close to Alonso at his best but looking at their whole careers then yes, IMO, Alonso definitely.

mikeyg123 wrote:

bonecrasher wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Invade wrote:

Zoue wrote: yep, I'd be one of them

And I think that's a perfectly reasonable view too, despite the discrepancy in achievements.

Alonso for me is definitely the best driver post Schumacher. I actually think he probably had surpassed Schumacher himself by 06.

Definitely? I would have thought there was at least a question mark between him and Hamilton. After all he failed to beat rookie Hamilton when he was the reigning back to back 2 time world champion. Now from thin air he is just better?

Alosno had 17 seasons in F1. I'm judging him across all of them not just 1. I think you could argue across the last 12 months Hamilton is possibly getting close to Alonso at his best but looking at their whole careers then yes, IMO, Alonso definitely.

bonecrasher wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Invade wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Invade wrote:All you can do is be the best of your era, and in F1 that's really difficult to decide because of the importance of the team and the machinery. I'm sure many here still have Alonso as better than both Hamilton and Vettel.

yep, I'd be one of them

And I think that's a perfectly reasonable view too, despite the discrepancy in achievements.

Alonso for me is definitely the best driver post Schumacher. I actually think he probably had surpassed Schumacher himself by 06.

Definitely? I would have thought there was at least a question mark between him and Hamilton. After all he failed to beat rookie Hamilton when he was the reigning back to back 2 time world champion. Now from thin air he is just better?

Just like it never happened?

pokerman wrote:
Alonso for me is definitely the best driver post Schumacher. I actually think he probably had surpassed Schumacher himself by 06.

Definitely? I would have thought there was at least a question mark between him and Hamilton. After all he failed to beat rookie Hamilton when he was the reigning back to back 2 time world champion. Now from thin air he is just better?[/quote]
Just like it never happened? [/quote]

No, Just like it was a 1/17 of his entire career.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Just like it never happened?

No, Just like it was a 1/17 of his entire career.

A time when he was tested by a driver on the same level as him although you yourself see Alonso as being a tier above Hamilton.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Just like it never happened?

No, Just like it was a 1/17 of his entire career.

A time when he was tested by a driver on the same level as him although you yourself see Alonso as being a tier above Hamilton.

I think throughout their careers Alonso has been the better driver yes. That doesn't mean that Hamilton at his best is always going to be inferior to Alonso of course. This is an opinion built over many years.

If you asked me is Hamilton right now driving as well as Alonso at his best then that would be closer.

Put it like this. If I had to make a combined top 10 of seasons performances from Hamilton and Alonso most would be from Alonso.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Just like it never happened?

No, Just like it was a 1/17 of his entire career.

A time when he was tested by a driver on the same level as him although you yourself see Alonso as being a tier above Hamilton.

I think throughout their careers Alonso has been the better driver yes. That doesn't mean that Hamilton at his best is always going to be inferior to Alonso of course. This is an opinion built over many years.

If you asked me is Hamilton right now driving as well as Alonso at his best then that would be closer.

Put it like this. If I had to make a combined top 10 of seasons performances from Hamilton and Alonso most would be from Alonso.

You don't take into account that Alonso has had weaker teammates though beating a succession of rookies and Massa plus all the #1 advantages that he had, the only driver Alonso couldn't steam roll post Hamilton was Button and that basically is the level of teammates that Hamilton has had to deal with with no #1 advantages.

This is were I will always differ with posters who think that they can judge driver performance better when they drive different cars rather than when they are actually teammates, hence you can basically totally dismiss the 2007 season.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Just like it never happened?

No, Just like it was a 1/17 of his entire career.

A time when he was tested by a driver on the same level as him although you yourself see Alonso as being a tier above Hamilton.

I think throughout their careers Alonso has been the better driver yes. That doesn't mean that Hamilton at his best is always going to be inferior to Alonso of course. This is an opinion built over many years.

If you asked me is Hamilton right now driving as well as Alonso at his best then that would be closer.

Put it like this. If I had to make a combined top 10 of seasons performances from Hamilton and Alonso most would be from Alonso.

You don't take into account that Alonso has had weaker teammates though beating a succession of rookies and Massa plus all the #1 advantages that he had, the only driver Alonso couldn't steam roll post Hamilton was Button and that basically is the level of teammates that Hamilton has had to deal with with no #1 advantages.

This is were I will always differ with posters who think that they can judge driver performance better when they drive different cars rather than when they are actually teammates, hence you can basically totally dismiss the 2007 season.

Of course I take it into account. I take it all into account.

I don't dismiss the 2007 season either. I just don't think the argument starts and ends there.

Bottom line I would put Alonso at 6th of all time and Hamilton 8th so it's not like I think there is a huge chasm.

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

bonecrasher wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Invade wrote:
And I think that's a perfectly reasonable view too, despite the discrepancy in achievements.

Alonso for me is definitely the best driver post Schumacher. I actually think he probably had surpassed Schumacher himself by 06.

Definitely? I would have thought there was at least a question mark between him and Hamilton. After all he failed to beat rookie Hamilton when he was the reigning back to back 2 time world champion. Now from thin air he is just better?

Alosno had 17 seasons in F1. I'm judging him across all of them not just 1. I think you could argue across the last 12 months Hamilton is possibly getting close to Alonso at his best but looking at their whole careers then yes, IMO, Alonso definitely.

+1

pokerman wrote: You don't take into account that Alonso has had weaker teammates though beating a succession of rookies and Massa plus all the #1 advantages that he had, the only driver Alonso couldn't steam roll post Hamilton was Button and that basically is the level of teammates that Hamilton has had to deal with with no #1 advantages.

This is were I will always differ with posters who think that they can judge driver performance better when they drive different cars rather than when they are actually teammates, hence you can basically totally dismiss the 2007 season.

Poker,
A couple of things...while you accuse others of dismissing the 2007 season, I think you and some others do just the opposite and put too much on 2007. To read some of the "justifications", one would think Lewis kicked Alonso up and down the track...he didn't, no matter how you try to portray it. Lewis didn't beat Alonso on points and he likely benefited by the turmoil within the team concerning Alonso's side of the garage and management. While a lot of that turmoil falls on Nando's shoulders not all of it does and even if it did you can't wash away the on track driving of Alonso because of it.

Alonso's teammates were a succession of rookies and Massa? Two points...Massa, in my opinion, was a much better driver than you give him credit for. And Alonso did not have the rather significant advantage of entering F1 in one of the best two cars on the grid...few drivers have. BTW, are you thinking Lewis has never had "#1" advantages in F1 ? Seriously?

I am one who believes that Alonso was the best driver on the track over the past dozen years and isn't that what the thread is about...best driver? As a driver, I believe that the talent of Alonso was/is superior to that of Lewis or Seb. It is an opinion, just as yours are...and just as valid.

I for one do not think Hamilton would have failed to pass Petrov for something as hugely significant as the world championship. It’s moments like those that ultimately define how high up the crest a driver can go. Hamilton managed it in 2008. Button managed it in 2009. Vettel managed it in 2012. Rosberg managed it on Verstappen on all people in Abu Dhabi 2016. And yet the best of the Era couldn’t manage it on Petrov? For the championship? I don’t know guys.

bonecrasher wrote:I for one do not think Hamilton would have failed to pass Petrov for something as hugely significant as the world championship. It’s moments like those that ultimately define how high up the crest a driver can go. Hamilton managed it in 2008. Button managed it in 2009. Vettel managed it in 2012. Rosberg managed it on Verstappen on all people in Abu Dhabi 2016. And yet the best of the Era couldn’t manage it on Petrov? For the championship? I don’t know guys.

It wasn't. Even if he passed Petrov he wouldn't have been champion. Maybe if had DRS like Rosberg he would've been able to?

bonecrasher wrote:I for one do not think Hamilton would have failed to pass Petrov for something as hugely significant as the world championship. It’s moments like those that ultimately define how high up the crest a driver can go. Hamilton managed it in 2008. Button managed it in 2009. Vettel managed it in 2012. Rosberg managed it on Verstappen on all people in Abu Dhabi 2016. And yet the best of the Era couldn’t manage it on Petrov? For the championship? I don’t know guys.

The key is that you "think", but don't know. To select one particular situation like that and then compare it to those others as fact, ignores that we don't and never will know if Lewis, Nico, Seb, or Max could have made the pass on Petrov in that exact situation and in that car. There are a lot of factors in play, to ignore them is a bit careless.

bonecrasher wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Invade wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Invade wrote:All you can do is be the best of your era, and in F1 that's really difficult to decide because of the importance of the team and the machinery. I'm sure many here still have Alonso as better than both Hamilton and Vettel.

yep, I'd be one of them

And I think that's a perfectly reasonable view too, despite the discrepancy in achievements.

Alonso for me is definitely the best driver post Schumacher. I actually think he probably had surpassed Schumacher himself by 06.

Definitely? I would have thought there was at least a question mark between him and Hamilton. After all he failed to beat rookie Hamilton when he was the reigning back to back 2 time world champion. Now from thin air he is just better?

One thing you'll find is that, in this particular forum, anything Alonso has done is worth achievements 10 times as great by other drivers. Claiming Alonso as the best of this generation is like claiming Hakkinen as the best of his IMO. Hamilton is easily the top driver post Schumacher by any reasonable analysis IMO and is the only driver since then that has put himself in the same category as Schumacher, Senna, Clark and Fangio.

Blake wrote:

bonecrasher wrote:I for one do not think Hamilton would have failed to pass Petrov for something as hugely significant as the world championship. It’s moments like those that ultimately define how high up the crest a driver can go. Hamilton managed it in 2008. Button managed it in 2009. Vettel managed it in 2012. Rosberg managed it on Verstappen on all people in Abu Dhabi 2016. And yet the best of the Era couldn’t manage it on Petrov? For the championship? I don’t know guys.

The key is that you "think", but don't know. To select one particular situation like that and then compare it to those others as fact, ignores that we don't and never will know if Lewis, Nico, Seb, or Max could have made the pass on Petrov in that exact situation and in that car. There are a lot of factors in play, to ignore them is a bit careless.

But isn't that the crux of the whole argument for Alonso as being the best of his generation? Isn't it all about what you "think" he could have done if he found himself in better cars? The point bonecrasher was making was that Alonso has been in position several times to help his own legacy but has often failed to deliver. Certainly years like 2007, 2010 and 2012 presented him with legitimate title chances that he was unable to deliver on. I think Alonso's advocates often like to paint a picture of him struggling against the odds in cars that were too slow but the bottom line is that he generally faded in the second half of seasons, almost never delivered in crunch time and could have won more titles than he did even in the exact same machinery.

More than anything; to prop Alonso up over Hamilton, you have to ignore the fact that Hamilton bested him as a teammate in his rookie year. You have to ignore the fact that Hamilton has won more than twice as many races and almost 3 times as many titles and has done it against stronger teammates and often strong competition from other teams. You basically have to ignore the fact that there is obviously someone who is contemporaneous with Alonso who has out-performed him.

Blake wrote:

bonecrasher wrote:I for one do not think Hamilton would have failed to pass Petrov for something as hugely significant as the world championship. It’s moments like those that ultimately define how high up the crest a driver can go. Hamilton managed it in 2008. Button managed it in 2009. Vettel managed it in 2012. Rosberg managed it on Verstappen on all people in Abu Dhabi 2016. And yet the best of the Era couldn’t manage it on Petrov? For the championship? I don’t know guys.

The key is that you "think", but don't know. To select one particular situation like that and then compare it to those others as fact, ignores that we don't and never will know if Lewis, Nico, Seb, or Max could have made the pass on Petrov in that exact situation and in that car. There are a lot of factors in play, to ignore them is a bit careless.

Those other guys of course had their own particular situations so didn’t need the exact same circumstances to prove themselves, but the bottom line is they reached out and grabbed their opportunity when it presented itself. Alonso had opportunities to enhance his legacy. No one was gonna hand it to him and as the best of the era as some believe he should have been able to cement his place in the echelons of the sport.

bonecrasher wrote:

Blake wrote:

bonecrasher wrote:I for one do not think Hamilton would have failed to pass Petrov for something as hugely significant as the world championship. It’s moments like those that ultimately define how high up the crest a driver can go. Hamilton managed it in 2008. Button managed it in 2009. Vettel managed it in 2012. Rosberg managed it on Verstappen on all people in Abu Dhabi 2016. And yet the best of the Era couldn’t manage it on Petrov? For the championship? I don’t know guys.

The key is that you "think", but don't know. To select one particular situation like that and then compare it to those others as fact, ignores that we don't and never will know if Lewis, Nico, Seb, or Max could have made the pass on Petrov in that exact situation and in that car. There are a lot of factors in play, to ignore them is a bit careless.

Those other guys of course had their own particular situations so didn’t need the exact same circumstances to prove themselves, but the bottom line is they reached out and grabbed their opportunity when it presented itself. Alonso had opportunities to enhance his legacy. No one was gonna hand it to him and as the best of the era as some believe he should have been able to cement his place in the echelons of the sport.

For me and plenty of others he has done that.

The above discussion only goes to prove my point that we all have our own personal 'best' drivers, and that it is impossible by argument to come to any objective conclusions. The only fair way to do it is by some sort of statistical analysis - my view is that number of F1 titles, wins % etc are the way. If not, what is the alternative?

sandman1347 wrote:

bonecrasher wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
Alonso for me is definitely the best driver post Schumacher. I actually think he probably had surpassed Schumacher himself by 06.

Definitely? I would have thought there was at least a question mark between him and Hamilton. After all he failed to beat rookie Hamilton when he was the reigning back to back 2 time world champion. Now from thin air he is just better?

One thing you'll find is that, in this particular forum, anything Alonso has done is worth achievements 10 times as great by other drivers. Claiming Alonso as the best of this generation is like claiming Hakkinen as the best of his IMO. Hamilton is easily the top driver post Schumacher by any reasonable analysis IMO and is the only driver since then that has put himself in the same category as Schumacher, Senna, Clark and Fangio.

10x??? How rich... Coming from one who has made a "career" out of bigging up Lewis and his achievements...maybe even as much as 10x others.

Sandman, you need to understand that there are other fans who also have credible opinions on the subject of drivers in F1. You choose to use the term "reasonable analysis", but it is, by your own post, is YOUR definition of what it means. You come across as though almost any opinion other that your own(or others of similar thoughts) is without value. Lewis has become a very successful driver and I certainly can understand his fans being proud of what he has accomplished, but...in MY opinion, he is not at the level of Schumi, Clark, Senna or Alonso. Again, that is my opinion and as such it is just as valid as those of sandman.

tim3003 wrote:The above discussion only goes to prove my point that we all have our own personal 'best' drivers, and that it is impossible by argument to come to any objective conclusions. The only fair way to do it is by some sort of statistical analysis - my view is that number of F1 titles, wins % etc are the way. If not, what is the alternative?

It simply does not represent who was best. There is no way to know for sure.

mikeyg123 wrote:
It simply does not represent who was best. There is no way to know for sure.

Well I say it does - maybe not 100% exactly, but closer than any other guess. If not, what is your alternative? If you have none, I win by default!

sandman1347 wrote: More than anything; to prop Alonso up over Hamilton, you have to ignore the fact that Hamilton bested him as a teammate in his rookie year. You have to ignore the fact that Hamilton has won more than twice as many races and almost 3 times as many titles and has done it against stronger teammates and often strong competition from other teams. You basically have to ignore the fact that there is obviously someone who is contemporaneous with Alonso who has out-performed him.

Never has a tie in points been hyped up to the benefit of one particular driver as the infamous 2007 when two drivers for the same number of WDC points for driving cars that were disqualified for the WCC. How in the neck could F1 have justified that if either Alonso or Lewis had one the WDC? What a mess that would have been.

Yes, Lewis has won more races and more WDCs than has Alonso, but as you are on the subject of others "ignoring" what you see as pertinent facts, you seem perfectly willing to IGNORE the fact that Alonso has not had the dominate rides that Lewis has benefited from the past several years. I seriously doubt that Lewis would have been winning races and WDCs in Alonso's cars either. So has Hamilton really out-performed Alonso as a driver, or just out-scored him (not necessarily the same thing)? Personally, I do not thinks so, hence my rating of Alonso over Lewis.

tim3003 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
It simply does not represent who was best. There is no way to know for sure.

Well I say it does - maybe not 100% exactly, but closer than any other guess. If not, what is your alternative? If you have none, I win by default!

My alternative is to watch the races, study accounts from the time and make a judgement. Plenty of drivers who have never won titles are better than those that have.