planetf1.com

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

tim3003 wrote:But if you ask an F1 driver what he wants to achieve in his career he'll say wins and world titles. How then can we measure him on any other criteria? This surely is the way F1 team managers judge drivers too.

I really don't think it is. Why did Red Bull start prioritizing the driver with fewer wins, no poles, etc? Because they were pretty certain Max was quicker, despite not having the achievements to go with it. Same reason Ferrari wanted Leclerc; they believed he would be faster than Kimi, despite Kimi having a WDC and a pocket full of wins and poles.

I would actually say that the teams look at the question almost directly opposite to you: they care only about performance, and not achievements. If Bottas suddenly started outperforming his 5x WC teammate on a season-long basis, Lewis would find himself out the door, all-time pole leader or not. Speed is everything.

Which circles back to Alonso, what were the top teams looking at when they chose not to employ supposedly the out and out best driver in F1?

age, attitude, history. The top teams already have top drivers and as LdM famously once said, they don't want two roosters, or words to that effect. But if they didn't they'd probably be falling over themselves. Witness McLaren who had to eat an awful lot of humble pie to get Alonso back. Neither Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull are in a position that they have to find a top driver for their teams

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote: I've stated how I take 2007 into account very clearly. It's important but not where the argument starts or ends.

I stand by my opinion. For me, taking both their entire careers in mind Alonso was definitely better than Hamilton.

You are entitled to that opinion but I'm reading your post were you said that Alonso was a tier above Hamilton, I actually believe that is basically ignoring 2007 plus the performance data that shows Button was closer to Alonso than he was to Hamilton, of course you can still believe Alonso was the better driver as in more consistent as alluded to by Button, but not a tier above when such data suggests that Hamilton was ultimately quicker than Alonso, something that Alonso himself perhaps alluded to when he said he may not be the fastest driver in F1?

I would be interested in the performance data on Button/Alonso.
I also would like to make a clear distinction between fastest and best again. You seem to more or less equate these two categories. To clarify; I don't doubt for a second that Senna was still the fastest man in F1 when he died. But whether he was better than Schumacher is far from certain to me.

No I've always said that fastest and best can be two different things, that's how some pick Prost over Senna even though they would still acknowledge that Senna was faster.

On that score that's why I wouldn't want to bother taking issue as such with anyone who says that Alonso was better, my issue is when it's said that Alonso was a level above Hamilton.

In terms of data Mark Hughes does this although his numbers always seem inflated when compared to mine, his gaps are much bigger than mine.

Hughes' numbers are usually expressed as percentages, whereas yours are expressed as time. I think this has been pointed out before? Your numbers are always going to differ because you are using different units of measurement.

If someone is better than another, could they not be a level above, too? I think you need to be clear how you define a level before taking umbrage at someone else's interpretation

tim3003 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

tim3003 wrote:But if you ask an F1 driver what he wants to achieve in his career he'll say wins and world titles. How then can we measure him on any other criteria? This surely is the way F1 team managers judge drivers too.

I really don't think it is. Why did Red Bull start prioritizing the driver with fewer wins, no poles, etc? Because they were pretty certain Max was quicker, despite not having the achievements to go with it. Same reason Ferrari wanted Leclerc; they believed he would be faster than Kimi, despite Kimi having a WDC and a pocket full of wins and poles.

I would actually say that the teams look at the question almost directly opposite to you: they care only about performance, and not achievements. If Bottas suddenly started outperforming his 5x WC teammate on a season-long basis, Lewis would find himself out the door, all-time pole leader or not. Speed is everything.

Which circles back to Alonso, what were the top teams looking at when they chose not to employ supposedly the out and out best driver in F1?

His disruptive influence, as in 2007 which led to Mclaren not winning the title?... So, going forward he was not the best bet for more titles.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:You are entitled to that opinion but I'm reading your post were you said that Alonso was a tier above Hamilton, I actually believe that is basically ignoring 2007 plus the performance data that shows Button was closer to Alonso than he was to Hamilton, of course you can still believe Alonso was the better driver as in more consistent as alluded to by Button, but not a tier above when such data suggests that Hamilton was ultimately quicker than Alonso, something that Alonso himself perhaps alluded to when he said he may not be the fastest driver in F1?

I would be interested in the performance data on Button/Alonso.
I also would like to make a clear distinction between fastest and best again. You seem to more or less equate these two categories. To clarify; I don't doubt for a second that Senna was still the fastest man in F1 when he died. But whether he was better than Schumacher is far from certain to me.

No I've always said that fastest and best can be two different things, that's how some pick Prost over Senna even though they would still acknowledge that Senna was faster.

On that score that's why I wouldn't want to bother taking issue as such with anyone who says that Alonso was better, my issue is when it's said that Alonso was a level above Hamilton.

In terms of data Mark Hughes does this although his numbers always seem inflated when compared to mine, his gaps are much bigger than mine.

Hughes' numbers are usually expressed as percentages, whereas yours are expressed as time. I think this has been pointed out before? Your numbers are always going to differ because you are using different units of measurement.

If someone is better than another, could they not be a level above, too? I think you need to be clear how you define a level before taking umbrage at someone else's interpretation

Then why do people express such number in seconds like you said theoretically that Verstappen might be half a second quicker than Hamilton?

Anyway back to the point Alonso being better than Hamilton is an opinion, Alonso being faster than Hamilton is not backed up by the data.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

tim3003 wrote:But if you ask an F1 driver what he wants to achieve in his career he'll say wins and world titles. How then can we measure him on any other criteria? This surely is the way F1 team managers judge drivers too.

I really don't think it is. Why did Red Bull start prioritizing the driver with fewer wins, no poles, etc? Because they were pretty certain Max was quicker, despite not having the achievements to go with it. Same reason Ferrari wanted Leclerc; they believed he would be faster than Kimi, despite Kimi having a WDC and a pocket full of wins and poles.

I would actually say that the teams look at the question almost directly opposite to you: they care only about performance, and not achievements. If Bottas suddenly started outperforming his 5x WC teammate on a season-long basis, Lewis would find himself out the door, all-time pole leader or not. Speed is everything.

Which circles back to Alonso, what were the top teams looking at when they chose not to employ supposedly the out and out best driver in F1?

age, attitude, history. The top teams already have top drivers and as LdM famously once said, they don't want two roosters, or words to that effect. But if they didn't they'd probably be falling over themselves. Witness McLaren who had to eat an awful lot of humble pie to get Alonso back. Neither Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull are in a position that they have to find a top driver for their teams

I believe it was Honda that wanted Alonso at McLaren, who had no past history with him, now they are believed to be blocking him from some seats in Indycar?

I'm not sure such things impact on who you consider to be the best driver but I would say they can impact on how successful you are going to be?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:I think Alonso keeps delivering year on year with the equipment limitations he has, too. It's definitely not a one-sided equation.

Last year Hamilton drove very well but as has been pointed out he was helped somewhat by Vettel and Ferrari imploding.

Vettel had a car over the season has good as the Mercedes, sometimes the driver has to do it for himself as well.

Bit in bold. Right there

No I just see blame sharing.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote: I would be interested in the performance data on Button/Alonso.
I also would like to make a clear distinction between fastest and best again. You seem to more or less equate these two categories. To clarify; I don't doubt for a second that Senna was still the fastest man in F1 when he died. But whether he was better than Schumacher is far from certain to me.

No I've always said that fastest and best can be two different things, that's how some pick Prost over Senna even though they would still acknowledge that Senna was faster.

On that score that's why I wouldn't want to bother taking issue as such with anyone who says that Alonso was better, my issue is when it's said that Alonso was a level above Hamilton.

In terms of data Mark Hughes does this although his numbers always seem inflated when compared to mine, his gaps are much bigger than mine.

Hughes' numbers are usually expressed as percentages, whereas yours are expressed as time. I think this has been pointed out before? Your numbers are always going to differ because you are using different units of measurement.

If someone is better than another, could they not be a level above, too? I think you need to be clear how you define a level before taking umbrage at someone else's interpretation

Then why do people express such number in seconds like you said theoretically that Verstappen might be half a second quicker than Hamilton?

Anyway back to the point Alonso being better than Hamilton is an opinion, Alonso being faster than Hamilton is not backed up by the data.

People are free to use whichever units they want. It's just that Hughes specifically tends to use percentages and you don't. Which in turn inevitably means you will have different figures. I don't see why this is hard to grasp?

The thread is about best driver, not fastest, and that has been what people have been saying when comparing Alonso and Hamilton. What point are you making here?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote: I really don't think it is. Why did Red Bull start prioritizing the driver with fewer wins, no poles, etc? Because they were pretty certain Max was quicker, despite not having the achievements to go with it. Same reason Ferrari wanted Leclerc; they believed he would be faster than Kimi, despite Kimi having a WDC and a pocket full of wins and poles.

I would actually say that the teams look at the question almost directly opposite to you: they care only about performance, and not achievements. If Bottas suddenly started outperforming his 5x WC teammate on a season-long basis, Lewis would find himself out the door, all-time pole leader or not. Speed is everything.

Which circles back to Alonso, what were the top teams looking at when they chose not to employ supposedly the out and out best driver in F1?

age, attitude, history. The top teams already have top drivers and as LdM famously once said, they don't want two roosters, or words to that effect. But if they didn't they'd probably be falling over themselves. Witness McLaren who had to eat an awful lot of humble pie to get Alonso back. Neither Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull are in a position that they have to find a top driver for their teams

I believe it was Honda that wanted Alonso at McLaren, who had no past history with him, now they are believed to be blocking him from some seats in Indycar?

I'm not sure such things impact on who you consider to be the best driver but I would say they can impact on how successful you are going to be?

I thought the IndyCar blocking theory had been debunked already?

Are we back to confusing best with most successful?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:I think Alonso keeps delivering year on year with the equipment limitations he has, too. It's definitely not a one-sided equation.

Last year Hamilton drove very well but as has been pointed out he was helped somewhat by Vettel and Ferrari imploding.

Vettel had a car over the season has good as the Mercedes, sometimes the driver has to do it for himself as well.

Bit in bold. Right there

No I just see blame sharing.

Of course you do. But, as has already been pointed out, what you see and what's there are two very different things

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:Vettel had a car over the season has good as the Mercedes, sometimes the driver has to do it for himself as well.

Bit in bold. Right there

No I just see blame sharing.

Of course you do. But, as has already been pointed out, what you see and what's there are two very different things

No it's not I think Ferrari provided for Vettel what was reasonably acceptable for him to win the title, expert opinion I believe has it 11-10 in favour of Ferrari on which car was best at each weekend plus they also gave him a 100% reliable car unlike his main competitor, what you seemingly required of Ferrari was to provide Vettel with the out and out best car?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:Which circles back to Alonso, what were the top teams looking at when they chose not to employ supposedly the out and out best driver in F1?

age, attitude, history. The top teams already have top drivers and as LdM famously once said, they don't want two roosters, or words to that effect. But if they didn't they'd probably be falling over themselves. Witness McLaren who had to eat an awful lot of humble pie to get Alonso back. Neither Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull are in a position that they have to find a top driver for their teams

I believe it was Honda that wanted Alonso at McLaren, who had no past history with him, now they are believed to be blocking him from some seats in Indycar?

I'm not sure such things impact on who you consider to be the best driver but I would say they can impact on how successful you are going to be?

I thought the IndyCar blocking theory had been debunked already?

Are we back to confusing best with most successful?

By Honda America who don't have the final say.

No I'm saying that can be part of the reasoning, I think Schumaher with is record number of titles and wins doesn't do him much harm?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:No I've always said that fastest and best can be two different things, that's how some pick Prost over Senna even though they would still acknowledge that Senna was faster.

On that score that's why I wouldn't want to bother taking issue as such with anyone who says that Alonso was better, my issue is when it's said that Alonso was a level above Hamilton.

In terms of data Mark Hughes does this although his numbers always seem inflated when compared to mine, his gaps are much bigger than mine.

Hughes' numbers are usually expressed as percentages, whereas yours are expressed as time. I think this has been pointed out before? Your numbers are always going to differ because you are using different units of measurement.

If someone is better than another, could they not be a level above, too? I think you need to be clear how you define a level before taking umbrage at someone else's interpretation

Then why do people express such number in seconds like you said theoretically that Verstappen might be half a second quicker than Hamilton?

Anyway back to the point Alonso being better than Hamilton is an opinion, Alonso being faster than Hamilton is not backed up by the data.

People are free to use whichever units they want. It's just that Hughes specifically tends to use percentages and you don't. Which in turn inevitably means you will have different figures. I don't see why this is hard to grasp?

The thread is about best driver, not fastest, and that has been what people have been saying when comparing Alonso and Hamilton. What point are you making here?

It's a miscommunication that had someone saying that Alonso was a tier above Hamilton and the need to question that.

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:
point I was trying (and apparently failed!) to make was that applying and dealing with the pressure is part of being the best. Vettels is increasingly looking like a driverw ho will go down as cracking under pressure, wheres Hamilton much less so and is certainly a master of applying it.

So to say he was "helped out by it" I think does him and Mercedes a disservice. They applied the pressure, maximized points at all opportunities and came out on top. It's not like they inherited a bunch of wins while trundling round 50 seconds down in 3rd and 4th place.

Well I've seen the disservice go as far to suggest that Hamilton has been lucky these past 2 seasons.

He has been lucky. Not to win the title - he's driven well enough that he hasn't needed luck to contribute. But the comment that appears to have you all riled up was regarding the fact that these last two seasons whenever he's been at a disadvantage, for whatever reason, something has happened to bring him back in the game. Unless you're trying to suggest that last weekend's win had nothing to do with luck?

Now you want to chalk up his success to luck? This is just getting ridiculous. I suppose he was lucky to attack Vettel and overtake him on track despite driving the slower car in Bahrain right?

On the point of Hamilton/Alonso; the fact is that last season, Hamiltoin had a year that is superior to any season Alonso ever produced. It was a season of dominating the championship without having a dominant machine. In similarly competitive scenarios; Alonso has never managed to dominate in that way.

What argument is there to be made for Alonso I wonder? Faster? Absolutely not; he wasn't even faster when Lewis was in his rookie season (the one point when every F1 driver is at their slowest).

Better under pressure? No way; Hamilton has delivered many times under pressure. In 2014, after reliability cost him dearly in the early part of the season, he won 6 of the last 7 rounds to take the title. In 2016, after another reliability nightmare, he won the last 4 races in an effort to come back and take the WDC. He has delivered down the stretch while Alonso allowed the title to slip through his fingers in 2010 and, to a lesser extent, 2012. Even in Alonso's two championship years, he basically held on for dear life during the second half of the year as Kimi and then Michael tried to chase down his lead. In 2006, Alonso won 6 of the first 9 races and then had only 1 win in the whole second half of the season.

More consistent? No, perhaps at one point I would have said that Alonso was the more consistent of the two but that was when Alonso was at his peak and before Hamilton had reached his. If we assess both of them at their best, I don't think either is more consistent than the other. They are both extremely consistent but neither is perfect. Both can have 2-3 weekends a year where they are not 100% on top of their game. Both make minimal mistakes when given a competitive car.

Racecraft? Nope. Don't get me wrong; Alonso's racecraft is top shelf but Hamilton's is even better. When it comes to overtaking and defending without making errors or crashing; Hamilton is as good as it gets. Alonso is brilliant, don't get me wrong but if I need someone to take a position, I'll take Hamilton behind the wheel over Alonso any day.

Better in the wet? Not a chance. Hamilton has been one of the two best wet weather drivers in the history of the sport. Alonso is not a particularly good or bad wet weather performer.

We don't even have to get into discussing who has won the most hardware. To each his own. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Personally I just don't see it.

kleefton wrote:This place gets funnier and funnier. Now when it rains Hamilton is lucky? Wow! Just because Hamilton can extract more performance in trickery conditions than others has nothing to do with luck. It just shows his superior skill in these conditions.

I also cannot comprehend how you can rate Alonso in a different league than Hamilton. I have nothing but high praise for Alonso as a driver, but what exactly has Alonso done to prove that he is that much better? It is such a highly subjective view that has no backing whatsoever, and imo it is being said in the sole purpose to discredit Hamilton and get a rise out of his fans.

The Chinese Grand prix couldn't get here soon enough. Some are truly bored.

sandman1347 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: I think the issue Zoue is with choosing to point out that Hamilton has benefited from others' misfortune but not doing the same for everyone else. Every driver who has been successful has both suffered misfortune and benefited from the misfortune of others. The way you have discussed it is extremely one-sided.

If you look, for example, at Sebastian Vettel's 2012 season; he twice won a race after Hamilton's car failed from the lead. You don't ever seem inclined to point that out when discussing that season or to make sure everyone knows how "lucky" Vettel was. Alonso also inherited multiple wins from Kimi's car failure during his first championship season in 2005 and he inherited a couple from Michael in 2006 during his second championship season. Hamilton effectively lost the championship in 2016 due to his engine blowing up in Malaysia.

Again, when you broach the subject of "luck", you do so in a manner that is very imbalanced and that's why people feel the need to counter you.

He's doing that in this thread because it was relevant to the post he was replying to. How lucky or not Vettel was in 2012 was not.

The post he was responding to was a post that pointed out that Zoue has taken to suggesting that Hamilton has been "lucky" these last two seasons. "Luck", by Zoue's definition encompasses a great many things; including mechanical failures for your rivals, being a better wet weather driver than your rivals and even having one of your rivals make a mistake.

Now the larger context of the discussion is the conversation about who between Hamilton and Alonso is the greater all-time driver. Within that context, if you see fit to point out every time that you perceive Hamilton to have benefited from "luck" while not pointing out the times it has gone against him, then you would also have to do the same for Alonso. You would have to point out that Alonso inherited 3 race wins during his first championship campaign due to Raikkonen's car failing from the lead and therefor was "lucky". Failing to do so would just be imbalanced. My remark about Vettel was just to point out that when discussing Vettel's 2012 triumph, I've never seen him feel the need to point out that he inherited those two wins from Hamilton and thus was "lucky".

Surely they are lucky. If you are a better wet weather driver then it is lucky when it rains. It is lucky when your rival has a mechanical retirement and it is lucky if your rival crashes out. These are things out of your control that have gone your way I.E luck.

Really, I think we just need to calm down about Hamilton. I actually really like Hamilton but a few of you are starting to make mentioning him on this forum all but impossible. If every word isn't glowing praise the thread will get derailed and a perfectly interesting discussion ruined.

I never thought of you as disliking Hamilton at all and I don't agree with your assessment. No one says every word about Hamilton has to be glowing praise but when you make assertions that are poorly supported, people in a forum will challenge them. There are a few people on the forum who seem to feel like Alonso's greatness cannot be questioned and that he must be held above all other contemporary drivers regardless of what actually happens. When you put forth that kind of view in a forum, I think you should expect that there will be debate that comes from it. If you don't like the debate then you should probably not present those views in a forum. You should especially avoid presenting them in a thread entitled "Best F1 driver ever?". In reading back through the debate, I don't see anything that's really out of bounds so I'm not entirely sure what you're complaining about.

As for the bit about luck; I don't see it that way. There will be times when things go against you and there will be times where opportunities present themselves to you. For the most part you usually make your own luck in racing (and life). For you to say that Hamilton is lucky that it started to rain because he is a better wet weather driver is something that I find incomprehensible. His own ability is not something that should ever be described as "luck". He is racing in the same conditions as everyone else. Surely being able to master those conditions should be chalked up to skill and most definitely not "luck". An engine failure is unlucky for the driver who experiences it but that doesn't mean the drivers who benefit are just lucky. They had to be there to benefit from the failure. Likewise if you pressure your opponent into a mistake, that's not you getting "lucky". That's you performing better than your opponent and applying pressure to him that he can't handle.

Following your train of thought, everything is luck. It's lucky you're an extremely fast driver in a really good car and that you set pole position and won the race. It's lucky you are able to do that consistently enough to win championships. Why even discuss any of this if it's all just a coin toss?

Covalent wrote:Oh look someone suggested Hamilton has not always been the best driver on the grid - boom, catastrophic thread derailment.

tim3003 wrote:Much as I repect the points made by the previous posts, it seems this thread is morphing into a Hamilton vs Alonso argument. My original aim was to explore the qualities which make a driver the best not just of his era, but of any era. To pinpoint and demonstrate these qualities requires a longer perspective than the last 10-15 years. I think arguments presented would be stronger if they showed more historical evidence.

For instance: Is Hamilton lucky if it rains? Of course not, he's simply quicker in those conditions, as Senna and Schumacher were, and Prost and Vettel weren't/aren't. Senna's extra skill gave him a big advantage in 1-2 races per season over Prost. Maybe Hamilton has the same..

Fiki wrote: The second point is not so important but still; what makes you think Prost wasn't quick(er) in the rain? Who gave you that idea?

• Would Jim Clarke have been able to wrap his head around the poly-functional steering wheels while talking strategy on the radio?
  Would Lewis Hamilton be brave enough to race in Jackie Stewart's era wheel to wheel through the forests knowing there was a 2 in 3 chance he would die?
  Would Senna have had the temperament to build a whole team around him?
  Would Fangio be willing to work on his fitness levels in a 2019-esque scientific environment, and does he have a good physical base to train from?
  Does Ascari have a philosophy for driver, technical and sporting evolution to push his and the sport's boundaries to higher levels to get and stay ahead of the competition?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote: point I was trying (and apparently failed!) to make was that applying and dealing with the pressure is part of being the best. Vettels is increasingly looking like a driverw ho will go down as cracking under pressure, wheres Hamilton much less so and is certainly a master of applying it.

So to say he was "helped out by it" I think does him and Mercedes a disservice. They applied the pressure, maximized points at all opportunities and came out on top. It's not like they inherited a bunch of wins while trundling round 50 seconds down in 3rd and 4th place.

Well I've seen the disservice go as far to suggest that Hamilton has been lucky these past 2 seasons.

He has been lucky. Not to win the title - he's driven well enough that he hasn't needed luck to contribute. But the comment that appears to have you all riled up was regarding the fact that these last two seasons whenever he's been at a disadvantage, for whatever reason, something has happened to bring him back in the game. Unless you're trying to suggest that last weekend's win had nothing to do with luck?

The only luck Hamilton had was to prove himself better than Vettel, to be better in the wet than Vettel, now it's luck for one driver to prove himself better than another driver, It's luck for another driver to beat another driver in a slower car?

Hamilton was better than Vettel last year. There, is that unambiguous enough for you?

Back to last weekend: do you think Hamilton was fortunate that Leclerc had an engine issue? A simple yes or no will do

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Bit in bold. Right there

No I just see blame sharing.

Of course you do. But, as has already been pointed out, what you see and what's there are two very different things

No it's not I think Ferrari provided for Vettel what was reasonably acceptable for him to win the title, expert opinion I believe has it 11-10 in favour of Ferrari on which car was best at each weekend plus they also gave him a 100% reliable car unlike his main competitor, what you seemingly required of Ferrari was to provide Vettel with the out and out best car?

I don't see how you can draw that inference from me saying Vettel and Ferrari imploded?

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote: point I was trying (and apparently failed!) to make was that applying and dealing with the pressure is part of being the best. Vettels is increasingly looking like a driverw ho will go down as cracking under pressure, wheres Hamilton much less so and is certainly a master of applying it.

So to say he was "helped out by it" I think does him and Mercedes a disservice. They applied the pressure, maximized points at all opportunities and came out on top. It's not like they inherited a bunch of wins while trundling round 50 seconds down in 3rd and 4th place.

Well I've seen the disservice go as far to suggest that Hamilton has been lucky these past 2 seasons.

He has been lucky. Not to win the title - he's driven well enough that he hasn't needed luck to contribute. But the comment that appears to have you all riled up was regarding the fact that these last two seasons whenever he's been at a disadvantage, for whatever reason, something has happened to bring him back in the game. Unless you're trying to suggest that last weekend's win had nothing to do with luck?

The only luck Hamilton had was to prove himself better than Vettel, to be better in the wet than Vettel, now it's luck for one driver to prove himself better than another driver, It's luck for another driver to beat another driver in a slower car?

Way to shift goal posts there. Having had some luck doesn't mean he was lucky to beat Vettel. You are getting confused. But yes, he has had some luck, like Baku, rain in Singapore or the fact that Ferrari got it wrong in a few races.

This does not detract from the fact that he also suffered DNF's due to mechanical reasons when Vettel didn't, nor that he was lucky to win the WDC.

In short, no one offended your favourite driver, ok?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: age, attitude, history. The top teams already have top drivers and as LdM famously once said, they don't want two roosters, or words to that effect. But if they didn't they'd probably be falling over themselves. Witness McLaren who had to eat an awful lot of humble pie to get Alonso back. Neither Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull are in a position that they have to find a top driver for their teams

I believe it was Honda that wanted Alonso at McLaren, who had no past history with him, now they are believed to be blocking him from some seats in Indycar?

I'm not sure such things impact on who you consider to be the best driver but I would say they can impact on how successful you are going to be?

I thought the IndyCar blocking theory had been debunked already?

Are we back to confusing best with most successful?

By Honda America who don't have the final say.

No I'm saying that can be part of the reasoning, I think Schumaher with is record number of titles and wins doesn't do him much harm?

Who does, then - you?

You have me confused with the last sentence. You seem to be arguing against a position nobody has taken?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:No I just see blame sharing.

Of course you do. But, as has already been pointed out, what you see and what's there are two very different things

No it's not I think Ferrari provided for Vettel what was reasonably acceptable for him to win the title, expert opinion I believe has it 11-10 in favour of Ferrari on which car was best at each weekend plus they also gave him a 100% reliable car unlike his main competitor, what you seemingly required of Ferrari was to provide Vettel with the out and out best car?

I don't see how you can draw that inference from me saying Vettel and Ferrari imploded?

Because you're trying to establish equal fault, Ferrari provided the tools needed to win the title for Vettel.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Hughes' numbers are usually expressed as percentages, whereas yours are expressed as time. I think this has been pointed out before? Your numbers are always going to differ because you are using different units of measurement.

If someone is better than another, could they not be a level above, too? I think you need to be clear how you define a level before taking umbrage at someone else's interpretation

Then why do people express such number in seconds like you said theoretically that Verstappen might be half a second quicker than Hamilton?

Anyway back to the point Alonso being better than Hamilton is an opinion, Alonso being faster than Hamilton is not backed up by the data.

People are free to use whichever units they want. It's just that Hughes specifically tends to use percentages and you don't. Which in turn inevitably means you will have different figures. I don't see why this is hard to grasp?

The thread is about best driver, not fastest, and that has been what people have been saying when comparing Alonso and Hamilton. What point are you making here?

It's a miscommunication that had someone saying that Alonso was a tier above Hamilton and the need to question that.

No it's you misinterpreting what was said and feeling the irresistible urge to err on the side of caution when determining whether Hamilton has been slighted. Someone put Alonso above Hamilton, big deal. That's not a put down of Hamilton, despite your best efforts to interpret it as that. It's simply an opinion that Alonso was the best. Given "best" is so highly subjective anyway and that no-one on here can even agree what that exactly means, one wonders why you don't allow others to have their own opinion on this?

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

bonecrasher wrote: Hamilton put himself in the position to win that race due to his race craft and speed. He fell back to 4th off the line but was able to fight back. Bottas could have won the race, he had track position but Hamilton performed a brilliant overtaking manoeuvre to get into 3rd. Vettel also had the chance to win the race, he had the faster car after all and was ahead of Hamilton, but Hamilton hounded him for most of the race and forced him into another error as he was passing him. Ferrari should have won that race even with Leclerc’s issue because they had the fastest car, but they didn’t because Hamilton was better than Vettel.

so you don't think it was fortunate for Hamilton that Leclerc had the issue when he did? You think Hamilton would have won anyway?

Seeing that Hamilton himself said he was fortunate (even used the word luck), I don't know how someone can argue it...

This doesn't mean that he was sitting in his hotel room and someone gifted him the win. He had to drive the car, pass Vettel and not put a foot down wrong. But luck played it's part.

yeah and that's what my original post which apparently caused all this outrage stated. I said credit to him for putting himself in a position to capitalise but apparently that got lost in all the red mist.

Go figure!

I was just reading about JV, saying that Hamilton didn't mean what he said to Leclerc after the race and that he was somehow rubbing in how much better he is than the other drivers:

https://www.gpfans.com/en/articles/3775 ... illeneuve/

Can't beat the guy!

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:I believe it was Honda that wanted Alonso at McLaren, who had no past history with him, now they are believed to be blocking him from some seats in Indycar?

I'm not sure such things impact on who you consider to be the best driver but I would say they can impact on how successful you are going to be?

I thought the IndyCar blocking theory had been debunked already?

Are we back to confusing best with most successful?

By Honda America who don't have the final say.

No I'm saying that can be part of the reasoning, I think Schumaher with is record number of titles and wins doesn't do him much harm?

Who does, then - you?

You have me confused with the last sentence. You seem to be arguing against a position nobody has taken?

No Honda decides, the last sentence is a clear reply to what you said about confusing best with most successful.

pokerman wrote:

Invade wrote:There's a chance that a few race weekends will be significantly affected by rain every season. It happening is not lucky in and of itself. Now, if we look at the specific timing of this happening given where the advantage appeared to be between Ferrari and Mercedes last year, it seems reasonable to say that Hamilton struck it rich, which I'm pretty sure he himself would agree with, given the beaming smile he has on his face when it rains and the opportunity he feels it can open up for him. But then if Hamilton was a bad wet weather driver it could have been bad luck instead, so Hamilton makes his own luck by being better than the rest and having that ace in the hand. Still, if Mercedes have a clear advantage in the dry, wet weather has high potential to add variables to the race equation which the teams are less able to control, in which case Hamilton would probably hope for the more stable and predictable dry conditions to carry the advantage home.

There was a time when great wet weather drivers were feted in particular Senna, now when it rains that particular driver is just deemed to be lucky?

Covalent wrote:Oh look someone suggested Hamilton has not always been the best driver on the grid - boom, catastrophic thread derailment.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:People talking about meteorological statistics and the chances of rain are missing the point. Hamilton's not lucky whenever it rains, as some on here are trying to make out is being said. The luck part is e.g. it raining whenever it looks like Ferrari have a significant advantage in the dry, enabling Hamilton to put his apparently god-like wet weather skills to use. If it rains when Mercedes already have an advantage, so what? Likewise, if it rains when the cars are equal or else extremely close, so what? But if it rains when Ferrari look to be locking out the front row in the dry, then rain helping to take away some of that advantage is fortunate. It's not in any way a dig at Hamilton to say that. Likewise, if Leclerc's car fails when it looks like he's running away with the win, then that's also fortunate for Hamilton in 2nd place. It in no way detracts from the effort he's already put in to reach 2nd, just a comment on his fortune that something outside his control intervened which helped him out even further. The fact that I'm having to go to such lengths to explain this and underline how it's not anything to do with his driving skills is frankly a little sad. I don't get this with any other driver here but whenever it's Hamilton in the discussion we have to walk around on eggshells.

It's about Hamilton because you specifically make it about Hamilton, Hamilton being especially good in the wet is then luck for him when ever it rains, the best car should win the race and it's just luck when conditions allow the driver himself to make the difference, it's kind of strange to hear this when so often F1 can be criticised about being more about the car than the driver, but then again not unsurprising.

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: The post he was responding to was a post that pointed out that Zoue has taken to suggesting that Hamilton has been "lucky" these last two seasons. "Luck", by Zoue's definition encompasses a great many things; including mechanical failures for your rivals, being a better wet weather driver than your rivals and even having one of your rivals make a mistake.

Now the larger context of the discussion is the conversation about who between Hamilton and Alonso is the greater all-time driver. Within that context, if you see fit to point out every time that you perceive Hamilton to have benefited from "luck" while not pointing out the times it has gone against him, then you would also have to do the same for Alonso. You would have to point out that Alonso inherited 3 race wins during his first championship campaign due to Raikkonen's car failing from the lead and therefor was "lucky". Failing to do so would just be imbalanced. My remark about Vettel was just to point out that when discussing Vettel's 2012 triumph, I've never seen him feel the need to point out that he inherited those two wins from Hamilton and thus was "lucky".

Surely they are lucky. If you are a better wet weather driver then it is lucky when it rains. It is lucky when your rival has a mechanical retirement and it is lucky if your rival crashes out. These are things out of your control that have gone your way I.E luck.

Really, I think we just need to calm down about Hamilton. I actually really like Hamilton but a few of you are starting to make mentioning him on this forum all but impossible. If every word isn't glowing praise the thread will get derailed and a perfectly interesting discussion ruined.

I never thought of you as disliking Hamilton at all and I don't agree with your assessment. No one says every word about Hamilton has to be glowing praise but when you make assertions that are poorly supported, people in a forum will challenge them. There are a few people on the forum who seem to feel like Alonso's greatness cannot be questioned and that he must be held above all other contemporary drivers regardless of what actually happens. When you put forth that kind of view in a forum, I think you should expect that there will be debate that comes from it. If you don't like the debate then you should probably not present those views in a forum. You should especially avoid presenting them in a thread entitled "Best F1 driver ever?". In reading back through the debate, I don't see anything that's really out of bounds so I'm not entirely sure what you're complaining about.

As for the bit about luck; I don't see it that way. There will be times when things go against you and there will be times where opportunities present themselves to you. For the most part you usually make your own luck in racing (and life). For you to say that Hamilton is lucky that it started to rain because he is a better wet weather driver is something that I find incomprehensible. His own ability is not something that should ever be described as "luck". He is racing in the same conditions as everyone else. Surely being able to master those conditions should be chalked up to skill and most definitely not "luck". An engine failure is unlucky for the driver who experiences it but that doesn't mean the drivers who benefit are just lucky. They had to be there to benefit from the failure. Likewise if you pressure your opponent into a mistake, that's not you getting "lucky". That's you performing better than your opponent and applying pressure to him that he can't handle.

Following your train of thought, everything is luck. It's lucky you're an extremely fast driver in a really good car and that you set pole position and won the race. It's lucky you are able to do that consistently enough to win championships. Why even discuss any of this if it's all just a coin toss?

Because that's both daft reasoning and a complete strawman. Luck was being mentioned in very specific circumstances and, as has already been pointed out, even Hamilton acknowledged he had a lucky win in Bahrain. Why aren't you criticizing him for saying that?

You clearly don't feel that Hamilton was unlucky in 2016 when his PU failed when leading the race in Malaysia, or when a hairline split in a rubber tube caused him to lose a cylinder in Australia 2014. But I think most would disagree with you that luck plays no part whenever something happens that is completely beyond the driver's control. And that's both negative and positive

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I don't see how you can draw that inference from me saying Vettel and Ferrari imploded?

Because you're trying to establish equal fault, Ferrari provided the tools needed to win the title for Vettel.

and they had several races where they took the wrong development direction, too. I haven't put a percentage split on it all so I think you're just imagining it here. Why is it important to you anyway? It doesn't change anything about the point being made

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: He has been lucky. Not to win the title - he's driven well enough that he hasn't needed luck to contribute. But the comment that appears to have you all riled up was regarding the fact that these last two seasons whenever he's been at a disadvantage, for whatever reason, something has happened to bring him back in the game. Unless you're trying to suggest that last weekend's win had nothing to do with luck?

The only luck Hamilton had was to prove himself better than Vettel, to be better in the wet than Vettel, now it's luck for one driver to prove himself better than another driver, It's luck for another driver to beat another driver in a slower car?

Hamilton was better than Vettel last year. There, is that unambiguous enough for you?

Back to last weekend: do you think Hamilton was fortunate that Leclerc had an engine issue? A simple yes or no will do

Hamilton was lucky to win in Bahrain, the problem was when this got extended to the last 2 years.

Why is it a problem to acknowledge that there were occasions where luck was involved? Or are you confusing luck on specific occasions with a blanket lucky title? Because the latter is most emphatically not what was said (a point which I reinforced above anyway)

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: He has been lucky. Not to win the title - he's driven well enough that he hasn't needed luck to contribute. But the comment that appears to have you all riled up was regarding the fact that these last two seasons whenever he's been at a disadvantage, for whatever reason, something has happened to bring him back in the game. Unless you're trying to suggest that last weekend's win had nothing to do with luck?

The only luck Hamilton had was to prove himself better than Vettel, to be better in the wet than Vettel, now it's luck for one driver to prove himself better than another driver, It's luck for another driver to beat another driver in a slower car?

Way to shift goal posts there. Having had some luck doesn't mean he was lucky to beat Vettel. You are getting confused. But yes, he has had some luck, like Baku, rain in Singapore or the fact that Ferrari got it wrong in a few races.

This does not detract from the fact that he also suffered DNF's due to mechanical reasons when Vettel didn't, nor that he was lucky to win the WDC.

In short, no one offended your favourite driver, ok?

When you say someone was lucky than that means underserving.

That's not really true. It just means that factors outside their control helped influence things

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: The post he was responding to was a post that pointed out that Zoue has taken to suggesting that Hamilton has been "lucky" these last two seasons. "Luck", by Zoue's definition encompasses a great many things; including mechanical failures for your rivals, being a better wet weather driver than your rivals and even having one of your rivals make a mistake.

Now the larger context of the discussion is the conversation about who between Hamilton and Alonso is the greater all-time driver. Within that context, if you see fit to point out every time that you perceive Hamilton to have benefited from "luck" while not pointing out the times it has gone against him, then you would also have to do the same for Alonso. You would have to point out that Alonso inherited 3 race wins during his first championship campaign due to Raikkonen's car failing from the lead and therefor was "lucky". Failing to do so would just be imbalanced. My remark about Vettel was just to point out that when discussing Vettel's 2012 triumph, I've never seen him feel the need to point out that he inherited those two wins from Hamilton and thus was "lucky".

Surely they are lucky. If you are a better wet weather driver then it is lucky when it rains. It is lucky when your rival has a mechanical retirement and it is lucky if your rival crashes out. These are things out of your control that have gone your way I.E luck.

Really, I think we just need to calm down about Hamilton. I actually really like Hamilton but a few of you are starting to make mentioning him on this forum all but impossible. If every word isn't glowing praise the thread will get derailed and a perfectly interesting discussion ruined.

I never thought of you as disliking Hamilton at all and I don't agree with your assessment. No one says every word about Hamilton has to be glowing praise but when you make assertions that are poorly supported, people in a forum will challenge them. There are a few people on the forum who seem to feel like Alonso's greatness cannot be questioned and that he must be held above all other contemporary drivers regardless of what actually happens. When you put forth that kind of view in a forum, I think you should expect that there will be debate that comes from it. If you don't like the debate then you should probably not present those views in a forum. You should especially avoid presenting them in a thread entitled "Best F1 driver ever?". In reading back through the debate, I don't see anything that's really out of bounds so I'm not entirely sure what you're complaining about.

As for the bit about luck; I don't see it that way. There will be times when things go against you and there will be times where opportunities present themselves to you. For the most part you usually make your own luck in racing (and life). For you to say that Hamilton is lucky that it started to rain because he is a better wet weather driver is something that I find incomprehensible. His own ability is not something that should ever be described as "luck". He is racing in the same conditions as everyone else. Surely being able to master those conditions should be chalked up to skill and most definitely not "luck". An engine failure is unlucky for the driver who experiences it but that doesn't mean the drivers who benefit are just lucky. They had to be there to benefit from the failure. Likewise if you pressure your opponent into a mistake, that's not you getting "lucky". That's you performing better than your opponent and applying pressure to him that he can't handle.

Following your train of thought, everything is luck. It's lucky you're an extremely fast driver in a really good car and that you set pole position and won the race. It's lucky you are able to do that consistently enough to win championships. Why even discuss any of this if it's all just a coin toss?

Because that's both daft reasoning and a complete strawman. Luck was being mentioned in very specific circumstances and, as has already been pointed out, even Hamilton acknowledged he had a lucky win in Bahrain. Why aren't you criticizing him for saying that?

You clearly don't feel that Hamilton was unlucky in 2016 when his PU failed when leading the race in Malaysia, or when a hairline split in a rubber tube caused him to lose a cylinder in Australia 2014. But I think most would disagree with you that luck plays no part whenever something happens that is completely beyond the driver's control. And that's both negative and positive

Speaking of "daft"; in the post that you quoted, I made the following statement; "An engine failure is unlucky for the driver who experiences it but that doesn't mean the drivers who benefit are just lucky". You then wrote this in your post; "You clearly don't feel that Hamilton was unlucky in 2016 when his PU failed when leading the race in Malaysia". So who's creating strawmen Zoue? If you cannot generate a cogent argument, simply keep quiet. Don't chime in and intentionally misrepresent other people's views.

Zoue wrote:People talking about meteorological statistics and the chances of rain are missing the point. Hamilton's not lucky whenever it rains, as some on here are trying to make out is being said. The luck part is e.g. it raining whenever it looks like Ferrari have a significant advantage in the dry, enabling Hamilton to put his apparently god-like wet weather skills to use. If it rains when Mercedes already have an advantage, so what? Likewise, if it rains when the cars are equal or else extremely close, so what? But if it rains when Ferrari look to be locking out the front row in the dry, then rain helping to take away some of that advantage is fortunate. It's not in any way a dig at Hamilton to say that. Likewise, if Leclerc's car fails when it looks like he's running away with the win, then that's also fortunate for Hamilton in 2nd place. It in no way detracts from the effort he's already put in to reach 2nd, just a comment on his fortune that something outside his control intervened which helped him out even further. The fact that I'm having to go to such lengths to explain this and underline how it's not anything to do with his driving skills is frankly a little sad. I don't get this with any other driver here but whenever it's Hamilton in the discussion we have to walk around on eggshells.