Murray Walker Puts Neck out there: HAM v SCH v SEN

[DFWdude]

Legendary columnist Murray Walker has tipped his hat to Lewis Hamilton over Michael Schumacher or Ayrton Senna,..

https://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/29 ... ray-walker

The reasoning is that Hamilton has not adopted the controversial driving tactics that blot Schumacher or Senna's careers. He cites several incidents with the two S's that famously come to mind. I bet you can think of them, too.

Frankly, I couldn't agree more with Walker's assessment. Attack...

[Invade]

Some of us here had a discussion after Hamilton won his 6th WDC that even if we argue he is half a step below Schumacher or Senna — not that I think that BTW — that the way he has comported himself as a champion might be enough to give him the nod.

To me, these guys competed in different eras and I'm not especially interested in placing one over the other, but at this stage it's hard to deny that Hamilton is in the top echelon of ATGs.

edit:

Well, I can think of a few who would resist for various reasons. I wonder if Hamilton is greater than Piquet yet (and where is Zoue anyway?)

And I wonder if our good pal Mikey is yet at the stage where he'd place Hamilton among the highest of the elite — perhaps not?

Ultimately, there are many standout drivers in the history of F1. It is entirely reasonable if there are some people who place, for example, Schumacher, Senna, Fangio, Clark, Prost, Stewart, even Alonso, and at a stretch folks like Piquet or Lauda, ahead of Hamilton.

For most though, I'm sure Hamilton would crack the top 5.

I'm sure there's a good chance Sandman would have him #1 — (and where is Sandman BTW?)

[Exediron]

I also agree. Schumacher and Senna are both tainted champions; each won at least one of their championships directly through dirty driving, and consistently displayed it throughout their careers. Hamilton has none of that hanging over him.

When Hamilton retires, I think it will be entirely reasonable to acknowledge him as the greatest F1 champion. One fan or another may have a personal belief that this driver was better or that driver (Lord knows we always felt that way about Schumi as well), but in terms of the fine balance of raw ability and hard accomplishments, Hamilton will stand atop the pyramid and deserve the recognition that goes with.

That said, I don't consider Hamilton the greatest qualifier of all time. That will still be Senna.

[Siao7]

I'd place them in top three, without a specific order. They are frankly the top of the top. If I was pressed I'd pick my favourite driver, but I really feel like there is not much between their skills as drivers. I'd pick any of them any day against another driver.

[Invade]

I also agree. Schumacher and Senna are both tainted champions; each won at least one of their championships directly through dirty driving, and consistently displayed it throughout their careers. Hamilton has none of that hanging over him.

When Hamilton retires, I think it will be entirely reasonable to acknowledge him as the greatest F1 champion. One fan or another may have a personal belief that this driver was better or that driver (Lord knows we always felt that way about Schumi as well), but in terms of the fine balance of raw ability and hard accomplishments, Hamilton will stand atop the pyramid and deserve the recognition that goes with.

That said, I don't consider Hamilton the greatest qualifier of all time. That will still be Senna.

By the time Hamilton retires he might have 10 WDCs. I think 8 is a good bet, maybe even conservative.

It seems he's on his way to being the leader in every major metric.

[oz_karter]

I still can't agree with this. Lewis is obviously prolific and his talent is outstanding.

But even if Schumacher and Senna tainted their careers with dirty or questionable tactics, are they not still the most talented?

Another question remains - Schumacher and Senna were not as dominant and had more competition for their titles. If Hamilton had more competition threatening his wins and titles, would he have resorted to dirty tactics too? There are some hints in some of his earlier years (pre-Mercedes) that might suggest so.

It's also obvious that the Mercedes hybrid is the most dominant F1 car of all time. Schumacher, Senna, nor any other previous champion enjoyed such a gap over the field for so long. Senna also had very competitive teammates. Rosberg managed to beat Hamilton in 2016.

I am still not convinced. He's in the top few for sure, but I am not ready to put HAM above SCH or SEN.

[Centauri]

I still can't agree with this. Lewis is obviously prolific and his talent is outstanding.

But even if Schumacher and Senna tainted their careers with dirty or questionable tactics, are they not still the most talented?

Thing is, what are we debating here? Is Murray saying he's the most talented? The word he used was "greatest", which perhaps implies he's referring to the whole package rather than just driving ability.

[oz_karter]

Thing is, what are we debating here? Is Murray saying he's the most talented? The word he used was "greatest", which perhaps implies he's referring to the whole package rather than just driving ability.

Good point. But does being nice to other drivers mean they aren't great?

"Greatest" refers to both ability and eminence. I would still put Schumacher and Senna in that slot.

[Option or Prime]

Thing is, what are we debating here? Is Murray saying he's the most talented? The word he used was "greatest", which perhaps implies he's referring to the whole package rather than just driving ability.

Good point. But does being nice to other drivers mean they aren't great?

"Greatest" refers to both ability and eminence. I would still put Schumacher and Senna in that slot.

Surely though if you have to run other challengers for the title off the track that means you have run out of talent to beat them by racing. Hence resorting to bumper cars.

As soon as S and S started to resort to fairground tactics they admitted they had nothin left. H has outdriven all his challengers. He could have been on 7 WDCs already if he had nudged Rosberg but he is confident he can outdrive the rest. Its all about the driving!

[DFWdude]

[quote="Option or Prime]
As soon as S and S started to resort to fairground tactics they admitted they had nothin left. H has outdriven all his challengers. He could have been on 7 WDCs already if he had nudged Rosberg but he is confident he can outdrive the rest. Its all about the driving!
[/quote]

Yes, exactly this. HAM would have won the 2016 WDC had he not have the engine failure in Malaysia(?) Then he could have nudged Rosberg at the final race, but chose not to.

All one has to do is watch the feature length documentary "Senna" to understand the selfish, narcissistic attitude that Senna exhibited throughout much of his career, and certaingly when teamed with Prost. Watch Senna's childish outburst at the driver's meeting at Suzuka 1990, and you knew he would pull a stunt to guarantee that he would get his way. The first corner incident was no accident... It was planned from the start. Luckily both he and Prost walked away from it.

I had high regard for Schumacher until I watch the purposed stall to halt qualification in Monaco. Very unsportsmanlike.

[kleefton]

The only time I ever felt that Hamilton was unsportsmanlike was in that 2016 Abu Dhabi race when he was holding up Rosberg so that others would pass him. It didn't sit well with me, even though I'm a fan. There was very little chance that Rosberg would let Max or Vettel or anybody pass him anyway as the Merc was a dominant car in that race and Rosberg would not have had any problems repassing anyone. I thought it was a desperate and ill advised attempt at trying to avoid the inevitable and it showed how much he hated losing that title to Rosberg. I could understand his frustration as he was still the better driver that year, but sometimes you have to accept your losses and move on. What happened in Malaysia and the many poor starts is what cost him that year.

But he is still one of the fairest champions I have ever seen, and that is in any sport. That cannot be said for Senna and Schumi.

[Alienturnedhuman]

The only time I ever felt that Hamilton was unsportsmanlike was in that 2016 Abu Dhabi race when he was holding up Rosberg so that others would pass him. It didn't sit well with me, even though I'm a fan. There was very little chance that Rosberg would let Max or Vettel or anybody pass him anyway as the Merc was a dominant car in that race and Rosberg would not have had any problems repassing anyone. I thought it was a desperate and ill advised attempt at trying to avoid the inevitable and it showed how much he hated losing that title to Rosberg. I could understand his frustration as he was still the better driver that year, but sometimes you have to accept your losses and move on. What happened in Malaysia and the many poor starts is what cost him that year.

But he is still one of the fairest champions I have ever seen, and that is in any sport. That cannot be said for Senna and Schumi.

I am going to respective disagree with this. Slowing another driver down is a part of the sport (normally with regards to pit windows), if it is done fairly. There are ways to slow a driver down that are very dirty (such as letting them get a run on the outside and then deliberately driving them wide) but Hamilton never once did anything like that in the race. The result he needed was to win the WDC with Rosberg 4th or lower, driving off into the sunset, with Rosberg finishing second was conceding the championship.

If he had tried to deliberately engineer running Rosberg off the road, or get him to damage his car, or held him up in the pits, trigger a yellow flag or something like that - then I would certainly be extremely critical of that, but driving slowly to give the people behind an opportunity to overtake him? There is nothing in the rules that says the driver at the front has to drive as fast as they can, and conversely - had that been, say the 2013 Mercedes, where the cars behind would have been on a similar pace, then its the situation they would have been in at their normal race pace.

I actually thought that the way Hamilton drove that race showed his intelligence as a driver as he was able to drive the lap at a reduced pace but in such a way that he ensured he was never in danger of being overtaken by Rosberg. Yes, sector 3 at Abu Dhabi does make this easier than at a track like Silverstone or Spa, but the reduction in pace to keep the Ferrari and Red Bull in Rosberg's DRS was extreme.

Also, if Hamilton had driven at his natural race pace, Rosberg could have driven a reduced pace that was still faster than the Ferrari and Red Bull, safely bring the car home without endangering his second place. It would have been identical to Hamilton driving slowly and nobody would have said anything.

[mikeyg123]

Some of us here had a discussion after Hamilton won his 6th WDC that even if we argue he is half a step below Schumacher or Senna — not that I think that BTW — that the way he has comported himself as a champion might be enough to give him the nod.

To me, these guys competed in different eras and I'm not especially interested in placing one over the other, but at this stage it's hard to deny that Hamilton is in the top echelon of ATGs.

edit:

Well, I can think of a few who would resist for various reasons. I wonder if Hamilton is greater than Piquet yet (and where is Zoue anyway?)

And I wonder if our good pal Mikey is yet at the stage where he'd place Hamilton among the highest of the elite — perhaps not?

Ultimately, there are many standout drivers in the history of F1. It is entirely reasonable if there are some people who place, for example, Schumacher, Senna, Fangio, Clark, Prost, Stewart, even Alonso, and at a stretch folks like Piquet or Lauda, ahead of Hamilton.

For most though, I'm sure Hamilton would crack the top 5.

I'm sure there's a good chance Sandman would have him #1 — (and where is Sandman BTW?)

I think it's an interesting conversation and with statistics like Hamilton's he's definitely put himself in the conversation. For me though I wouldn't put him above any of what I consider the big 5. The five drivers who's names are usually discussed in all the GOAT discussions - Clark, Fangio, Prost, Schumacher and Senna.

I think since 2017 Hamilton has been driving at a level that would put him at least on par with any of them. For want of a better word I will call that GOAT level. Now in my opinion Hamilton spent too much of his career driving just under that goat level. I think it took him until his 11th season to get their and be the ultimate package of a driver we have now. I believe the other 5 drivers I have listed achieved that level much sooner and sustained it throughout the bulk of their careers. So while I believe since 2017 Hamilton has been as good as any of them if you took an average over their careers he has been slightly pooter than the other 5.

Now my second reason, and some people are going to hate this but it is my honest opinion, It's hard for me to discuss Hamilton as the GOAT when I don't even consider him the best (note I said best not greatest) driver of his generation. I would give that honor to Alonso. Obviously when discussing "greatness" Hamilton's statistics put him above Alonso in that. When we are talking about potentially the greatest of all time though I feel it's important that should be someone who was the best racing driver of their generation.

My top ten list at present -

1. Schumacher
2. Senna
3. Fangio
4. Clark
5. Prost
6. Hamilton
7. Stewart
8. Alonso
9. Ascari
10. Lauda

I generally define "greatness" in this context using 3 indicators - Ability, achievement, impact on the sport. Someone like Lauda IMO would not be top 10 on ability, he was beaten by too many teammates, but his impact on the sport is very large and his statistics good for his era.

Alonso the reverse. n ability I think he's up in the top 5 but as he spent a lot of his career not fighting for wins his legacy is reduced.

[Clarky]

The only time I ever felt that Hamilton was unsportsmanlike was in that 2016 Abu Dhabi race when he was holding up Rosberg so that others would pass him. It didn't sit well with me, even though I'm a fan. There was very little chance that Rosberg would let Max or Vettel or anybody pass him anyway as the Merc was a dominant car in that race and Rosberg would not have had any problems repassing anyone. I thought it was a desperate and ill advised attempt at trying to avoid the inevitable and it showed how much he hated losing that title to Rosberg. I could understand his frustration as he was still the better driver that year, but sometimes you have to accept your losses and move on. What happened in Malaysia and the many poor starts is what cost him that year.

But he is still one of the fairest champions I have ever seen, and that is in any sport. That cannot be said for Senna and Schumi.

Hamilton needed to win the Championship and what he did was done in a fair way.

Anyone would have done the same.

[Siao7]

[quote="Option or Prime]
As soon as S and S started to resort to fairground tactics they admitted they had nothin left. H has outdriven all his challengers. He could have been on 7 WDCs already if he had nudged Rosberg but he is confident he can outdrive the rest. Its all about the driving!

Yes, exactly this. HAM would have won the 2016 WDC had he not have the engine failure in Malaysia(?) Then he could have nudged Rosberg at the final race, but chose not to.

All one has to do is watch the feature length documentary "Senna" to understand the selfish, narcissistic attitude that Senna exhibited throughout much of his career, and certaingly when teamed with Prost. Watch Senna's childish outburst at the driver's meeting at Suzuka 1990, and you knew he would pull a stunt to guarantee that he would get his way. The first corner incident was no accident... It was planned from the start. Luckily both he and Prost walked away from it.

I had high regard for Schumacher until I watch the purposed stall to halt qualification in Monaco. Very unsportsmanlike.
[/quote]

If we go down the "could'a, would'a, should'a" road, then Schumacher could have had more WDC's and Senna too. Equally, they could have less, if the FIA had some balls back then. In fact, I dare say that if they nipped in the bud in 1989 (or in 1985 for what it's worth), then possibly Senna and Schumacher wouldn't resort to these tactics. But it is a different discussion, we can only judge them on their abilities, skills and what they actually achieved.

[tootsie323]

Note the comments re Hamilton at Abu Dhabi 2016 and largely agree. Whilst he has shown his teeth in not being afraid to 'hang another driver out to dry,' as Martin Brundle likes to put it, he hasn't to my knowledge deliberately run a competitor off the road in an attempt to secure a WDC.
There is very little to separate the likes of Senna, Schumacher and Hamilton in terms of greatness (Notes: interesting that we don't include Prost in this; whilst not at the ultimate pace of Senna, he was a top all-round driver - I guess that Fangio is from another era altogether - Vettel and Piquet don't even appear to warrant a mention) but sportsmanlike (or, perhaps more appropriately, unsportsmanlike) conduct is ne area where I believe that Hamilton can hold his head up against the others.

[Siao7]

Note the comments re Hamilton at Abu Dhabi 2016 and largely agree. Whilst he has shown his teeth in not being afraid to 'hang another driver out to dry,' as Martin Brundle likes to put it, he hasn't to my knowledge deliberately run a competitor off the road in an attempt to secure a WDC.
There is very little to separate the likes of Senna, Schumacher and Hamilton in terms of greatness (Notes: interesting that we don't include Prost in this; whilst not at the ultimate pace of Senna, he was a top all-round driver - I guess that Fangio is from another era altogether - Vettel and Piquet don't even appear to warrant a mention) but sportsmanlike (or, perhaps more appropriately, unsportsmanlike) conduct is ne area where I believe that Hamilton can hold his head up against the others.

Absolutely.

[Greenman]

.

Maybe a little off topic, but it is VERY noticeable that Vettel is missing from the conversation. When he had won his last championship he had a lot of supporters stating his greatness. Over the years they seem to have "evaporated". Is this due to his fans realisation of his dependence on his car/team, or is it because his continuing failures, tantrums and winge-ing ? Should he have left F1 earlier ?

.

[mikeyg123]

.

Maybe a little off topic, but it is VERY noticeable that Vettel is missing from the conversation. When he had won his last championship he had a lot of supporters stating his greatness. Over the years they seem to have "evaporated". Is this due to his fans realisation of his dependence on his car/team, or is it because his continuing failures, tantrums and winge-ing ? Should he have left F1 earlier ?

.

I think Vettel is the Piquet to Hamilton and Alonso's Prost/Senna.

[Schumacher forever#1]

One thing missing from this discussion is that, in Formula 1 especially, the concept of sportsmanship is continually evolving. I don't think we can compare the likes of Hamilton and Senna on an equal ground when it comes to sportsmanship. What was accepted right and wrong was very different in 1990 to what it is today.

I'd also firmly be of the opinion that dirty tactics do not show who is better. It is irrelevant to the discussion in my eyes. If we were to ask who had the most impact on the sport was then yes it would have a place.

They show how willing they are to win, even if it means sacrificing your reputation. It's a trade-off on whether you put more emphasis on a driver's ultimate desire or a driver's desire to be just.

[Jezza13]

A couple of hurdles I see that prevents Hamilton standing at the top of the mountain in my book of greatness.

1. He's been blessed with a car that has, for the most part, easily been the class of the field for his championship years. He's also been blessed with a set of regulations that has made it extremely difficult for other teams to close the gap.
2. He's often had races where he just hasn't seemed to have his mind on the job. I remember days when I think issues in his personal life have have affected his driving & Brundle still makes comments alluding to Hamilton's perceived negative mindset on the odd occasion.

The question I ask is how many other drivers could've amassed the same numbers as Hamilton given the same situation. I think certainly Senna, Schumacher, Prost & Alonso. Maybe Vettel, Piquet & Mansell.

The same with Schumacher. Given the car, the support & the competition, could others have achieved the same results? Senna? Prost? Alonso, Hamilton? Maybe.

But with Senna, I look at his wins with Lotus, his 88, 89, 92 seasons, his 91 championship season & of course his 93 season & I ask who could've achieved those results given the same scenario. It could be my bias speaking here but I can't see Schumacher, Prost, Hamilton, Alonso or anyone else getting those results.

Of course Senna was flawed. To me his 90 stunt in Japan remains the most distasteful action I've seen in my 30 odd years of watching F1. He deserved to be stripped of the championship & heavily fined at a minimum. Likewise Schumacher, arguably flawed to a greater degree than Senna. Yes Hamilton hasn't had to dive to those depths but he's never really been in a situation where it'd be an option. I think his tactics in Abu Dhabi '16 were totally fine & understandable. I had no issue with what he did there at all. To me it was a totally legitimate tactic to use given the situation.

No doubt Hamilton's one of the greatest. Probably 3rd on my list behind Senna & Prost & i'd say he'd be just about #2 but I can't class him as the best i've seen.

[pokerman]

I still can't agree with this. Lewis is obviously prolific and his talent is outstanding.

But even if Schumacher and Senna tainted their careers with dirty or questionable tactics, are they not still the most talented?

Another question remains - Schumacher and Senna were not as dominant and had more competition for their titles. If Hamilton had more competition threatening his wins and titles, would he have resorted to dirty tactics too? There are some hints in some of his earlier years (pre-Mercedes) that might suggest so.

It's also obvious that the Mercedes hybrid is the most dominant F1 car of all time. Schumacher, Senna, nor any other previous champion enjoyed such a gap over the field for so long. Senna also had very competitive teammates. Rosberg managed to beat Hamilton in 2016.

I am still not convinced. He's in the top few for sure, but I am not ready to put HAM above SCH or SEN.

People are entitled to their own opinion on this but let's not be making things up like alluding to Hamilton's dirty driving.

[pokerman]

.

Maybe a little off topic, but it is VERY noticeable that Vettel is missing from the conversation. When he had won his last championship he had a lot of supporters stating his greatness. Over the years they seem to have "evaporated". Is this due to his fans realisation of his dependence on his car/team, or is it because his continuing failures, tantrums and winge-ing ? Should he have left F1 earlier ?

.

I think Vettel is the Piquet to Hamilton and Alonso's Prost/Senna.

Good comparison.

[Badgeronimous]

delete

[Badgeronimous]

I have no issue putting Hamilton on the top step amongst the other greats. The last few seasons especially he has matured into something very complete and a bit of a phenomenon.

A lot is about perception. Hamilton, and indeed (IMO to a slightly lesser extent) Schumacher, both have their statistics inflated by circumstances - Schumacher found himself in unprecedented circumstances, and Hamilton has found himself in circumstances that surpass even that. Without those extraordinary circumstances, neither would have racked up anywhere near as impressive statistics. (I say that as a single team win rate of 75% is considered domination over a single season..... let alone over 125 races and 7 seasons)

Hamilton generally has been a "clean" driver, and I put that in inverted commas. I'd say Hamilton is generally very good at judging how far he can push something without getting outside the grey area - not isn't a criticism either btw, it's a praise.

[Invade]

One thing missing from this discussion is that, in Formula 1 especially, the concept of sportsmanship is continually evolving. I don't think we can compare the likes of Hamilton and Senna on an equal ground when it comes to sportsmanship. What was accepted right and wrong was very different in 1990 to what it is today.

I'd also firmly be of the opinion that dirty tactics do not show who is better. It is irrelevant to the discussion in my eyes. If we were to ask who had the most impact on the sport was then yes it would have a place.

They show how willing they are to win, even if it means sacrificing your reputation. It's a trade-off on whether you put more emphasis on a driver's ultimate desire or a driver's desire to be just.

I'm glad someone brought this up. It's very tricky and I agree we should be careful about judging past standards by present standards. It's complicated also because this isn't some linear progression of improving morality from the beginning of F1 to the present day. Perhaps Schumacher was a product of Senna, but in eras before them we had Champions as fair as Hamilton.

[Invade]

Some of us here had a discussion after Hamilton won his 6th WDC that even if we argue he is half a step below Schumacher or Senna — not that I think that BTW — that the way he has comported himself as a champion might be enough to give him the nod.

To me, these guys competed in different eras and I'm not especially interested in placing one over the other, but at this stage it's hard to deny that Hamilton is in the top echelon of ATGs.

edit:

Well, I can think of a few who would resist for various reasons. I wonder if Hamilton is greater than Piquet yet (and where is Zoue anyway?)

And I wonder if our good pal Mikey is yet at the stage where he'd place Hamilton among the highest of the elite — perhaps not?

Ultimately, there are many standout drivers in the history of F1. It is entirely reasonable if there are some people who place, for example, Schumacher, Senna, Fangio, Clark, Prost, Stewart, even Alonso, and at a stretch folks like Piquet or Lauda, ahead of Hamilton.

For most though, I'm sure Hamilton would crack the top 5.

I'm sure there's a good chance Sandman would have him #1 — (and where is Sandman BTW?)

I think it's an interesting conversation and with statistics like Hamilton's he's definitely put himself in the conversation. For me though I wouldn't put him above any of what I consider the big 5. The five drivers who's names are usually discussed in all the GOAT discussions - Clark, Fangio, Prost, Schumacher and Senna.

I think since 2017 Hamilton has been driving at a level that would put him at least on par with any of them. For want of a better word I will call that GOAT level. Now in my opinion Hamilton spent too much of his career driving just under that goat level. I think it took him until his 11th season to get their and be the ultimate package of a driver we have now. I believe the other 5 drivers I have listed achieved that level much sooner and sustained it throughout the bulk of their careers. So while I believe since 2017 Hamilton has been as good as any of them if you took an average over their careers he has been slightly pooter than the other 5.

Now my second reason, and some people are going to hate this but it is my honest opinion, It's hard for me to discuss Hamilton as the GOAT when I don't even consider him the best (note I said best not greatest) driver of his generation. I would give that honor to Alonso. Obviously when discussing "greatness" Hamilton's statistics put him above Alonso in that. When we are talking about potentially the greatest of all time though I feel it's important that should be someone who was the best racing driver of their generation.

My top ten list at present -

1. Schumacher
2. Senna
3. Fangio
4. Clark
5. Prost
6. Hamilton
7. Stewart
8. Alonso
9. Ascari
10. Lauda

I generally define "greatness" in this context using 3 indicators - Ability, achievement, impact on the sport. Someone like Lauda IMO would not be top 10 on ability, he was beaten by too many teammates, but his impact on the sport is very large and his statistics good for his era.

Alonso the reverse. n ability I think he's up in the top 5 but as he spent a lot of his career not fighting for wins his legacy is reduced.

Nice detailed post. I'd say two things. You dismiss Hamilton's early dominance too much at Mercedes because you feel the car was too dominant, but I assume you won't hold that against him now in 2020 should he dominate because he's proved himself, so to speak, in measurable circumstances against Vettel in 2017 and 2018 where the gap in class perhaps became clear. But maybe those performances just proved what was always inside Hamilton. 2014 and 2015 were impressive, I'd say, and it's not like he didn't put in stellar seasons before then such as 2010 and especially 2012, where if he was worse than Alonso it wasn't by much.

Secondly, I think the argument about being best as a pure driver, say, in an era can be faulty. Some eras just have more top-end talent than others. Maybe Schumacher wouldn't have been the "best" in his era if he and Alonso's primes has coincided for many years. We don't know, of course, but we do know that Schumacher inherited an era devoid of Champions at the start of his reign. The best example I can think of is the perception of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in tennis, who are all considered to not just be greater but also better than Sampras by a majority. Yet of course they can't all be the best of their era, yet Sampras was the best of his. Sampras didn't have any equivalent talent to prove himself against or be potentially exposed by, but Fed, Rafa, Nole have. We could level a similar charge at Schumacher, who, once he got going, had his stiffest competition in Hakkinen. Towards the end of his prime or even after it, he was done by Alonso.

So I don't think the "having to be the best in an era" notion always stands to reason, but it is a more objective (less subjective) measure to use that, which compares peers, than to use something which creates fantasies and assumptions across eras with no tangible evidence. Yet the perception is clear in the tennis example I gave above, and I do agree that all 3 are overall greater and better than Sampras and that after a weak era tennis saw a golden generation the likes of which hadn't been seen since Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall.

[Invade]

PS, the above is not designed to diminish Schumacher. He obviously has an extremely strong argument in pretty much every facet for being the greatest and the best ever.

[Paolo_Lasardi]

I agree that Hamilton has overtaken Schumacher and Senna in the GOAT-ranking. Obviously, just my opinion.

[mikeyg123]

Some of us here had a discussion after Hamilton won his 6th WDC that even if we argue he is half a step below Schumacher or Senna — not that I think that BTW — that the way he has comported himself as a champion might be enough to give him the nod.

To me, these guys competed in different eras and I'm not especially interested in placing one over the other, but at this stage it's hard to deny that Hamilton is in the top echelon of ATGs.

edit:

Well, I can think of a few who would resist for various reasons. I wonder if Hamilton is greater than Piquet yet (and where is Zoue anyway?)

And I wonder if our good pal Mikey is yet at the stage where he'd place Hamilton among the highest of the elite — perhaps not?

Ultimately, there are many standout drivers in the history of F1. It is entirely reasonable if there are some people who place, for example, Schumacher, Senna, Fangio, Clark, Prost, Stewart, even Alonso, and at a stretch folks like Piquet or Lauda, ahead of Hamilton.

For most though, I'm sure Hamilton would crack the top 5.

I'm sure there's a good chance Sandman would have him #1 — (and where is Sandman BTW?)

I think it's an interesting conversation and with statistics like Hamilton's he's definitely put himself in the conversation. For me though I wouldn't put him above any of what I consider the big 5. The five drivers who's names are usually discussed in all the GOAT discussions - Clark, Fangio, Prost, Schumacher and Senna.

I think since 2017 Hamilton has been driving at a level that would put him at least on par with any of them. For want of a better word I will call that GOAT level. Now in my opinion Hamilton spent too much of his career driving just under that goat level. I think it took him until his 11th season to get their and be the ultimate package of a driver we have now. I believe the other 5 drivers I have listed achieved that level much sooner and sustained it throughout the bulk of their careers. So while I believe since 2017 Hamilton has been as good as any of them if you took an average over their careers he has been slightly pooter than the other 5.

Now my second reason, and some people are going to hate this but it is my honest opinion, It's hard for me to discuss Hamilton as the GOAT when I don't even consider him the best (note I said best not greatest) driver of his generation. I would give that honor to Alonso. Obviously when discussing "greatness" Hamilton's statistics put him above Alonso in that. When we are talking about potentially the greatest of all time though I feel it's important that should be someone who was the best racing driver of their generation.

My top ten list at present -

1. Schumacher
2. Senna
3. Fangio
4. Clark
5. Prost
6. Hamilton
7. Stewart
8. Alonso
9. Ascari
10. Lauda

I generally define "greatness" in this context using 3 indicators - Ability, achievement, impact on the sport. Someone like Lauda IMO would not be top 10 on ability, he was beaten by too many teammates, but his impact on the sport is very large and his statistics good for his era.

Alonso the reverse. n ability I think he's up in the top 5 but as he spent a lot of his career not fighting for wins his legacy is reduced.

Nice detailed post. I'd say two things. You dismiss Hamilton's early dominance too much at Mercedes because you feel the car was too dominant, but I assume you won't hold that against him now in 2020 should he dominate because he's proved himself, so to speak, in measurable circumstances against Vettel in 2017 and 2018 where the gap in class perhaps became clear. But maybe those performances just proved what was always inside Hamilton. 2014 and 2015 were impressive, I'd say, and it's not like he didn't put in stellar seasons before then such as 2010 and especially 2012, where if he was worse than Alonso it wasn't by much.

Secondly, I think the argument about being best as a pure driver, say, in an era can be faulty. Some eras just have more top-end talent than others. Maybe Schumacher wouldn't have been the "best" in his era if he and Alonso's primes has coincided for many years. We don't know, of course, but we do know that Schumacher inherited an era devoid of Champions at the start of his reign. The best example I can think of is the perception of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in tennis, who are all considered to not just be greater but also better than Sampras by a majority. Yet of course they can't all be the best of their era, yet Sampras was the best of his. Sampras didn't have any equivalent talent to prove himself against or be potentially exposed by, but Fed, Rafa, Nole have. We could level a similar charge at Schumacher, who, once he got going, had his stiffest competition in Hakkinen. Towards the end of his prime or even after it, he was done by Alonso.

So I don't think the "having to be the best in an era" notion always stands to reason, but it is a more objective (less subjective) measure to use that, which compares peers, than to use something which creates fantasies and assumptions across eras with no tangible evidence. Yet the perception is clear in the tennis example I gave above, and I do agree that all 3 are overall greater and better than Sampras and that after a weak era tennis saw a golden generation the likes of which hadn't been seen since Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall.

Sure but to use your Tennis analogy you'd wouldn't pick one of the three you consider inferior to be the greatest?

This conversation is all about opinions which for me is what makes it so fascinating. I believe a reasonable person could put Hamilton anywhere from 1st to 8th greatest and have fair justification for their choice.

I agree that i find it very hard to rate 2014-16. I am of the opinion that a driver performing at GOAT level would not have dropped as many points, poles and wins to Nico Rosberg. Now, Rosberg is a bit of a tough driver to rate because despite 11 seasons in F1 he's almost impossible to benchmark against anyone but Hamilton himself which is obviously useless if the reason you're trying to establish how good he is is to donkeys Hamilton. It's circular. So whilst I'm pretty confident of my stated opinion - That the likes of Senna or Schumacher would never have let that amount of wins go begging to a driver nobody considers in a GOAT conversation, I accept that I could be wrong on that. Purely because Rosberg might be a lot better than I think. Some supporting evidence I would add is that Hamilton also lost a lot of results to Button. A very good driver but a driver of a standard that I think Schumacher or Senna would have made mincemeat of.

Regardless to any of that even if Hamilton hit full stride in 2014 that's still a lot of years spent slightly under GOAT level before 2014 bringing his career average down.

[Invade]

Some of us here had a discussion after Hamilton won his 6th WDC that even if we argue he is half a step below Schumacher or Senna — not that I think that BTW — that the way he has comported himself as a champion might be enough to give him the nod.

To me, these guys competed in different eras and I'm not especially interested in placing one over the other, but at this stage it's hard to deny that Hamilton is in the top echelon of ATGs.

edit:

Well, I can think of a few who would resist for various reasons. I wonder if Hamilton is greater than Piquet yet (and where is Zoue anyway?)

And I wonder if our good pal Mikey is yet at the stage where he'd place Hamilton among the highest of the elite — perhaps not?

Ultimately, there are many standout drivers in the history of F1. It is entirely reasonable if there are some people who place, for example, Schumacher, Senna, Fangio, Clark, Prost, Stewart, even Alonso, and at a stretch folks like Piquet or Lauda, ahead of Hamilton.

For most though, I'm sure Hamilton would crack the top 5.

I'm sure there's a good chance Sandman would have him #1 — (and where is Sandman BTW?)

I think it's an interesting conversation and with statistics like Hamilton's he's definitely put himself in the conversation. For me though I wouldn't put him above any of what I consider the big 5. The five drivers who's names are usually discussed in all the GOAT discussions - Clark, Fangio, Prost, Schumacher and Senna.

I think since 2017 Hamilton has been driving at a level that would put him at least on par with any of them. For want of a better word I will call that GOAT level. Now in my opinion Hamilton spent too much of his career driving just under that goat level. I think it took him until his 11th season to get their and be the ultimate package of a driver we have now. I believe the other 5 drivers I have listed achieved that level much sooner and sustained it throughout the bulk of their careers. So while I believe since 2017 Hamilton has been as good as any of them if you took an average over their careers he has been slightly pooter than the other 5.

Now my second reason, and some people are going to hate this but it is my honest opinion, It's hard for me to discuss Hamilton as the GOAT when I don't even consider him the best (note I said best not greatest) driver of his generation. I would give that honor to Alonso. Obviously when discussing "greatness" Hamilton's statistics put him above Alonso in that. When we are talking about potentially the greatest of all time though I feel it's important that should be someone who was the best racing driver of their generation.

My top ten list at present -

1. Schumacher
2. Senna
3. Fangio
4. Clark
5. Prost
6. Hamilton
7. Stewart
8. Alonso
9. Ascari
10. Lauda

I generally define "greatness" in this context using 3 indicators - Ability, achievement, impact on the sport. Someone like Lauda IMO would not be top 10 on ability, he was beaten by too many teammates, but his impact on the sport is very large and his statistics good for his era.

Alonso the reverse. n ability I think he's up in the top 5 but as he spent a lot of his career not fighting for wins his legacy is reduced.

Nice detailed post. I'd say two things. You dismiss Hamilton's early dominance too much at Mercedes because you feel the car was too dominant, but I assume you won't hold that against him now in 2020 should he dominate because he's proved himself, so to speak, in measurable circumstances against Vettel in 2017 and 2018 where the gap in class perhaps became clear. But maybe those performances just proved what was always inside Hamilton. 2014 and 2015 were impressive, I'd say, and it's not like he didn't put in stellar seasons before then such as 2010 and especially 2012, where if he was worse than Alonso it wasn't by much.

Secondly, I think the argument about being best as a pure driver, say, in an era can be faulty. Some eras just have more top-end talent than others. Maybe Schumacher wouldn't have been the "best" in his era if he and Alonso's primes has coincided for many years. We don't know, of course, but we do know that Schumacher inherited an era devoid of Champions at the start of his reign. The best example I can think of is the perception of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in tennis, who are all considered to not just be greater but also better than Sampras by a majority. Yet of course they can't all be the best of their era, yet Sampras was the best of his. Sampras didn't have any equivalent talent to prove himself against or be potentially exposed by, but Fed, Rafa, Nole have. We could level a similar charge at Schumacher, who, once he got going, had his stiffest competition in Hakkinen. Towards the end of his prime or even after it, he was done by Alonso.

So I don't think the "having to be the best in an era" notion always stands to reason, but it is a more objective (less subjective) measure to use that, which compares peers, than to use something which creates fantasies and assumptions across eras with no tangible evidence. Yet the perception is clear in the tennis example I gave above, and I do agree that all 3 are overall greater and better than Sampras and that after a weak era tennis saw a golden generation the likes of which hadn't been seen since Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall.

Sure but to use your Tennis analogy you'd wouldn't pick one of the three you consider inferior to be the greatest?

This conversation is all about opinions which for me is what makes it so fascinating. I believe a reasonable person could put Hamilton anywhere from 1st to 8th greatest and have fair justification for their choice.

I agree that i find it very hard to rate 2014-16. I am of the opinion that a driver performing at GOAT level would not have dropped as many points, poles and wins to Nico Rosberg. Now, Rosberg is a bit of a tough driver to rate because despite 11 seasons in F1 he's almost impossible to benchmark against anyone but Hamilton himself which is obviously useless if the reason you're trying to establish how good he is is to donkeys Hamilton. It's circular. So whilst I'm pretty confident of my stated opinion - That the likes of Senna or Schumacher would never have let that amount of wins go begging to a driver nobody considers in a GOAT conversation, I accept that I could be wrong on that. Purely because Rosberg might be a lot better than I think. Some supporting evidence I would add is that Hamilton also lost a lot of results to Button. A very good driver but a driver of a standard that I think Schumacher or Senna would have made mincemeat of.

Regardless to any of that even if Hamilton hit full stride in 2014 that's still a lot of years spent slightly under GOAT level before 2014 bringing his career average down.

From such a group, only one can take the top spot of course, but as a group they could be ahead of someone else from another era who was the best of their era.


I agree with you, anywhere from 1st to 8th is reasonable. We have to respect that the sport has seen many superb racers and given that the car is so incredibly important, there is special wiggle room in F1 to make contextual judgments — though some people will abuse this and use it as a shield to create confirmation bias in a way which is much harder to do in a sport like tennis which is a far purer meritocracy. Williams today is the equivalent, kind of, of making a top tennis player today use a wooden racket. That's a bit extreme but I'm sure you catch my drift.

It is very difficult to make these judgments. Perception on N.Rosberg varies wildly and he did go up against Schumacher and beat him in all 3 seasons but many dismiss this as a way-past-his-prime Schumacher. On the face of it Rosberg did compete against GOAT candidate drivers in many seasons, and fared quite favourably. Then we have to also judge the quality of teammates and the sort of philosophy that teams hard regarding driver preference. Schumacher perhaps looks so dominant because he simply was, but it's hard for me to believe that some of this wasn't down to generally having a lower level of teammates in general and a more lopsided intrateam condition which afforded him a substantial amount of his successes.

Hamilton has been exposed to greater talent within the team, including going up against Alonso as a rookie in 2007 of course, and doing well. Now I personally believe Hamilton has matured slower than the likes of Schumacher and Prost. He's more of a fine wine and his emotional intelligence grew slowly but surely. He has some intangibles which cover for this perhaps, in what I believe is an unparalleled self awareness to find constant improvement and to at least try to evolve year on year. So his trajectory is perhaps a bit different and unique. Once mercurial, he is now seemingly a constant presence of excellence.

Further, we now have to increasingly consider the sheer wealth of opportunity Hamilton has now been afforded. Schumacher was perhaps more dominant than Hamilton in a similar circumstance and this is reflected in winning percentage during their most dominant periods at Ferrari and Mercedes respectively. Hamilton may well have achieved similarly if his team backed him to the (frankly absurd) extent which Ferrari backed Schumacher. However, whatever the reasons are for this extra dominance whether it's more backing, or simply that Schumacher was the more relentless beast of a driver, Hamilton is now in a completely unprecedented position. Whatever we might argue he has lost due to team philosophy, he's gaining far more by virtue of the duration of dominance Mercedes are now experiencing.

We could look at WDCs won as a percentage of reasonable opportunity, for example that Hamilton could have won in 2007, 2010 and 2012 and of course 2016 but didn't — though this is very tricky and case dependent. But we can now seriously talk about an exceptionally #blessed #charmed existence of Hamilton in which he's odds on favourite to win the WDC in 2020 and 2021, and tell me, would you bet against Mercedes for 2022 and beyond?

It is all very interesting to discuss and as you say this is fascinating, especially when you can have reasonable discussion with others.

There's no doubt that Hamilton will have (or perhaps already has) had the most opportunities to become World Champion of any driver in history and it's key to consider this in then ranking him.

[Paolo_Lasardi]

Some of us here had a discussion after Hamilton won his 6th WDC that even if we argue he is half a step below Schumacher or Senna — not that I think that BTW — that the way he has comported himself as a champion might be enough to give him the nod.

To me, these guys competed in different eras and I'm not especially interested in placing one over the other, but at this stage it's hard to deny that Hamilton is in the top echelon of ATGs.

edit:

Well, I can think of a few who would resist for various reasons. I wonder if Hamilton is greater than Piquet yet (and where is Zoue anyway?)

And I wonder if our good pal Mikey is yet at the stage where he'd place Hamilton among the highest of the elite — perhaps not?

Ultimately, there are many standout drivers in the history of F1. It is entirely reasonable if there are some people who place, for example, Schumacher, Senna, Fangio, Clark, Prost, Stewart, even Alonso, and at a stretch folks like Piquet or Lauda, ahead of Hamilton.

For most though, I'm sure Hamilton would crack the top 5.

I'm sure there's a good chance Sandman would have him #1 — (and where is Sandman BTW?)

I think it's an interesting conversation and with statistics like Hamilton's he's definitely put himself in the conversation. For me though I wouldn't put him above any of what I consider the big 5. The five drivers who's names are usually discussed in all the GOAT discussions - Clark, Fangio, Prost, Schumacher and Senna.

I think since 2017 Hamilton has been driving at a level that would put him at least on par with any of them. For want of a better word I will call that GOAT level. Now in my opinion Hamilton spent too much of his career driving just under that goat level. I think it took him until his 11th season to get their and be the ultimate package of a driver we have now. I believe the other 5 drivers I have listed achieved that level much sooner and sustained it throughout the bulk of their careers. So while I believe since 2017 Hamilton has been as good as any of them if you took an average over their careers he has been slightly pooter than the other 5.

Now my second reason, and some people are going to hate this but it is my honest opinion, It's hard for me to discuss Hamilton as the GOAT when I don't even consider him the best (note I said best not greatest) driver of his generation. I would give that honor to Alonso. Obviously when discussing "greatness" Hamilton's statistics put him above Alonso in that. When we are talking about potentially the greatest of all time though I feel it's important that should be someone who was the best racing driver of their generation.

My top ten list at present -

1. Schumacher
2. Senna
3. Fangio
4. Clark
5. Prost
6. Hamilton
7. Stewart
8. Alonso
9. Ascari
10. Lauda

I generally define "greatness" in this context using 3 indicators - Ability, achievement, impact on the sport. Someone like Lauda IMO would not be top 10 on ability, he was beaten by too many teammates, but his impact on the sport is very large and his statistics good for his era.

Alonso the reverse. n ability I think he's up in the top 5 but as he spent a lot of his career not fighting for wins his legacy is reduced.

Nice detailed post. I'd say two things. You dismiss Hamilton's early dominance too much at Mercedes because you feel the car was too dominant, but I assume you won't hold that against him now in 2020 should he dominate because he's proved himself, so to speak, in measurable circumstances against Vettel in 2017 and 2018 where the gap in class perhaps became clear. But maybe those performances just proved what was always inside Hamilton. 2014 and 2015 were impressive, I'd say, and it's not like he didn't put in stellar seasons before then such as 2010 and especially 2012, where if he was worse than Alonso it wasn't by much.

Secondly, I think the argument about being best as a pure driver, say, in an era can be faulty. Some eras just have more top-end talent than others. Maybe Schumacher wouldn't have been the "best" in his era if he and Alonso's primes has coincided for many years. We don't know, of course, but we do know that Schumacher inherited an era devoid of Champions at the start of his reign. The best example I can think of is the perception of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in tennis, who are all considered to not just be greater but also better than Sampras by a majority. Yet of course they can't all be the best of their era, yet Sampras was the best of his. Sampras didn't have any equivalent talent to prove himself against or be potentially exposed by, but Fed, Rafa, Nole have. We could level a similar charge at Schumacher, who, once he got going, had his stiffest competition in Hakkinen. Towards the end of his prime or even after it, he was done by Alonso.

So I don't think the "having to be the best in an era" notion always stands to reason, but it is a more objective (less subjective) measure to use that, which compares peers, than to use something which creates fantasies and assumptions across eras with no tangible evidence. Yet the perception is clear in the tennis example I gave above, and I do agree that all 3 are overall greater and better than Sampras and that after a weak era tennis saw a golden generation the likes of which hadn't been seen since Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall.

Sure but to use your Tennis analogy you'd wouldn't pick one of the three you consider inferior to be the greatest?

This conversation is all about opinions which for me is what makes it so fascinating. I believe a reasonable person could put Hamilton anywhere from 1st to 8th greatest and have fair justification for their choice.

I agree that i find it very hard to rate 2014-16. I am of the opinion that a driver performing at GOAT level would not have dropped as many points, poles and wins to Nico Rosberg. Now, Rosberg is a bit of a tough driver to rate because despite 11 seasons in F1 he's almost impossible to benchmark against anyone but Hamilton himself which is obviously useless if the reason you're trying to establish how good he is is to donkeys Hamilton. It's circular. So whilst I'm pretty confident of my stated opinion - That the likes of Senna or Schumacher would never have let that amount of wins go begging to a driver nobody considers in a GOAT conversation, I accept that I could be wrong on that. Purely because Rosberg might be a lot better than I think. Some supporting evidence I would add is that Hamilton also lost a lot of results to Button. A very good driver but a driver of a standard that I think Schumacher or Senna would have made mincemeat of.

Regardless to any of that even if Hamilton hit full stride in 2014 that's still a lot of years spent slightly under GOAT level before 2014 bringing his career average down.

I think you cannot write it that strong since Schumacher indeed partnered Rosberg ...

[Siao7]

Some of us here had a discussion after Hamilton won his 6th WDC that even if we argue he is half a step below Schumacher or Senna — not that I think that BTW — that the way he has comported himself as a champion might be enough to give him the nod.

To me, these guys competed in different eras and I'm not especially interested in placing one over the other, but at this stage it's hard to deny that Hamilton is in the top echelon of ATGs.

edit:

Well, I can think of a few who would resist for various reasons. I wonder if Hamilton is greater than Piquet yet (and where is Zoue anyway?)

And I wonder if our good pal Mikey is yet at the stage where he'd place Hamilton among the highest of the elite — perhaps not?

Ultimately, there are many standout drivers in the history of F1. It is entirely reasonable if there are some people who place, for example, Schumacher, Senna, Fangio, Clark, Prost, Stewart, even Alonso, and at a stretch folks like Piquet or Lauda, ahead of Hamilton.

For most though, I'm sure Hamilton would crack the top 5.

I'm sure there's a good chance Sandman would have him #1 — (and where is Sandman BTW?)

I think it's an interesting conversation and with statistics like Hamilton's he's definitely put himself in the conversation. For me though I wouldn't put him above any of what I consider the big 5. The five drivers who's names are usually discussed in all the GOAT discussions - Clark, Fangio, Prost, Schumacher and Senna.

I think since 2017 Hamilton has been driving at a level that would put him at least on par with any of them. For want of a better word I will call that GOAT level. Now in my opinion Hamilton spent too much of his career driving just under that goat level. I think it took him until his 11th season to get their and be the ultimate package of a driver we have now. I believe the other 5 drivers I have listed achieved that level much sooner and sustained it throughout the bulk of their careers. So while I believe since 2017 Hamilton has been as good as any of them if you took an average over their careers he has been slightly pooter than the other 5.

Now my second reason, and some people are going to hate this but it is my honest opinion, It's hard for me to discuss Hamilton as the GOAT when I don't even consider him the best (note I said best not greatest) driver of his generation. I would give that honor to Alonso. Obviously when discussing "greatness" Hamilton's statistics put him above Alonso in that. When we are talking about potentially the greatest of all time though I feel it's important that should be someone who was the best racing driver of their generation.

My top ten list at present -

1. Schumacher
2. Senna
3. Fangio
4. Clark
5. Prost
6. Hamilton
7. Stewart
8. Alonso
9. Ascari
10. Lauda

I generally define "greatness" in this context using 3 indicators - Ability, achievement, impact on the sport. Someone like Lauda IMO would not be top 10 on ability, he was beaten by too many teammates, but his impact on the sport is very large and his statistics good for his era.

Alonso the reverse. n ability I think he's up in the top 5 but as he spent a lot of his career not fighting for wins his legacy is reduced.

Nice detailed post. I'd say two things. You dismiss Hamilton's early dominance too much at Mercedes because you feel the car was too dominant, but I assume you won't hold that against him now in 2020 should he dominate because he's proved himself, so to speak, in measurable circumstances against Vettel in 2017 and 2018 where the gap in class perhaps became clear. But maybe those performances just proved what was always inside Hamilton. 2014 and 2015 were impressive, I'd say, and it's not like he didn't put in stellar seasons before then such as 2010 and especially 2012, where if he was worse than Alonso it wasn't by much.

Secondly, I think the argument about being best as a pure driver, say, in an era can be faulty. Some eras just have more top-end talent than others. Maybe Schumacher wouldn't have been the "best" in his era if he and Alonso's primes has coincided for many years. We don't know, of course, but we do know that Schumacher inherited an era devoid of Champions at the start of his reign. The best example I can think of is the perception of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in tennis, who are all considered to not just be greater but also better than Sampras by a majority. Yet of course they can't all be the best of their era, yet Sampras was the best of his. Sampras didn't have any equivalent talent to prove himself against or be potentially exposed by, but Fed, Rafa, Nole have. We could level a similar charge at Schumacher, who, once he got going, had his stiffest competition in Hakkinen. Towards the end of his prime or even after it, he was done by Alonso.

So I don't think the "having to be the best in an era" notion always stands to reason, but it is a more objective (less subjective) measure to use that, which compares peers, than to use something which creates fantasies and assumptions across eras with no tangible evidence. Yet the perception is clear in the tennis example I gave above, and I do agree that all 3 are overall greater and better than Sampras and that after a weak era tennis saw a golden generation the likes of which hadn't been seen since Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall.

Sure but to use your Tennis analogy you'd wouldn't pick one of the three you consider inferior to be the greatest?

This conversation is all about opinions which for me is what makes it so fascinating. I believe a reasonable person could put Hamilton anywhere from 1st to 8th greatest and have fair justification for their choice.

I agree that i find it very hard to rate 2014-16. I am of the opinion that a driver performing at GOAT level would not have dropped as many points, poles and wins to Nico Rosberg. Now, Rosberg is a bit of a tough driver to rate because despite 11 seasons in F1 he's almost impossible to benchmark against anyone but Hamilton himself which is obviously useless if the reason you're trying to establish how good he is is to donkeys Hamilton. It's circular. So whilst I'm pretty confident of my stated opinion - That the likes of Senna or Schumacher would never have let that amount of wins go begging to a driver nobody considers in a GOAT conversation, I accept that I could be wrong on that. Purely because Rosberg might be a lot better than I think. Some supporting evidence I would add is that Hamilton also lost a lot of results to Button. A very good driver but a driver of a standard that I think Schumacher or Senna would have made mincemeat of.

Regardless to any of that even if Hamilton hit full stride in 2014 that's still a lot of years spent slightly under GOAT level before 2014 bringing his career average down.

I think you cannot write it that strong since Schumacher indeed partnered Rosberg ...

Not Schumacher Mk1.0 though

[Alienturnedhuman]

Hamilton's record against Rosberg is indeed telling. As is the fact that in the 7 races that Brundle and Schumacher both finished as teammates Brundle was ahead in 3 of them.

[mikeyg123]

Hamilton's record against Rosberg is indeed telling. As is the fact that in the 7 races that Brundle and Schumacher both finished as teammates Brundle was ahead in 3 of them.

In his first full season...

[Siao7]

Hamilton's record against Rosberg is indeed telling. As is the fact that in the 7 races that Brundle and Schumacher both finished as teammates Brundle was ahead in 3 of them.

Not all on merit though. Silverstone MS had a crash with a backmarker (Brundle in fairness had a brilliant race, he was leading both Senna and Schumacher for 50 or so laps), in Portugal MS had to start from the back and also had a puncture and in Italy he messed it up (his own fault) and had to pit for repairs. 1 season vs 4 is a much smaller pool though, so maybe not 100% comparable.

[Alienturnedhuman]

Hamilton's record against Rosberg is indeed telling. As is the fact that in the 7 races that Brundle and Schumacher both finished as teammates Brundle was ahead in 3 of them.

Not all on merit though. Silverstone MS had a crash with a backmarker (Brundle in fairness had a brilliant race, he was leading both Senna and Schumacher for 50 or so laps), in Portugal MS had to start from the back and also had a puncture and in Italy he messed it up (his own fault) and had to pit for repairs. 1 season vs 4 is a much smaller pool though, so maybe not 100% comparable.

Exactly, context is important. Let's look at all of Rosberg's wins while team mates with Hamilton:

2013
Monaco - a great performance by Rosberg
Britain - Hamilton’s tyres exploded when leading the race, which he was expected to win.

2014
Australia - Hamilton Retired due to engine problem
Monaco - Rosberg cheated in qualifying
Austria - Hamilton 1.9 second behind at end of race
Germany - Hamilton brake failure in qualifying, started 14th
Brazil - Hamilton finished 1.4 second behind Rosberg

2015
Spain - Poor hamilton performance
Monaco - Hamilton winning until poor pit strategy call
Austria - poor hamilton performance (3.8 seconds behind on track)
Mexico / Brazil / Abu Dhabi - Hamilton had won the WDC in previous race and was coasting

2016
Australia - turn 1 incident for Hamilton dropped him to 6th from pole and damaged front wing.
Bahrain -Collision with bottas dropped Hamilton to 9th on lap 1
China - Hamilton started 22nd due to not being able to take part in qualifying
Spain - Hamilton turbo failed in qualifying meaning he could not take part in Q3, started 10th
Baku - Hamilton crashed in qualifying, so started 10th
Belgium - Engine penalties meant Hamilton started 21st on the grid
Italy - Poor start (suspected car issue) after outqualifying Rosberg by 0.5second dropped him right down the field
Singapore - can’t remember this one, but we’ll count it as a poor Hamilton performance
Japan - Another poor start dropped Hamilton to 8th into turn 1

I have put in bold the races where Hamilton was indisputably outperformed by Rosberg and in highlighter put races where he was indisputably had circumstances that took him out of contention for the race win.

Schumacher had a number 2 who was not allowed to challenge him during his Ferrari time. Hamilton wouldn't have won Austria 2002. You can't just say "Rosberg wasn't a great but has X wins more than Hamilton therefore Hamilton isn't a GOAT" without digging into the story more than that. Even in 2016 Hamilton drove better than Rosberg - the team principals ranked Hamilton outright best driver, with Rosberg 3rd that year. That doesn't mean Rosberg didn't deserve to win the WDC, or to win the races he did - but it reflects the fact that despite not winning the championship it was known at the time that Hamilton had done a much better job.

[Paolo_Lasardi]

I think it's an interesting conversation and with statistics like Hamilton's he's definitely put himself in the conversation. For me though I wouldn't put him above any of what I consider the big 5. The five drivers who's names are usually discussed in all the GOAT discussions - Clark, Fangio, Prost, Schumacher and Senna.

I think since 2017 Hamilton has been driving at a level that would put him at least on par with any of them. For want of a better word I will call that GOAT level. Now in my opinion Hamilton spent too much of his career driving just under that goat level. I think it took him until his 11th season to get their and be the ultimate package of a driver we have now. I believe the other 5 drivers I have listed achieved that level much sooner and sustained it throughout the bulk of their careers. So while I believe since 2017 Hamilton has been as good as any of them if you took an average over their careers he has been slightly pooter than the other 5.

Now my second reason, and some people are going to hate this but it is my honest opinion, It's hard for me to discuss Hamilton as the GOAT when I don't even consider him the best (note I said best not greatest) driver of his generation. I would give that honor to Alonso. Obviously when discussing "greatness" Hamilton's statistics put him above Alonso in that. When we are talking about potentially the greatest of all time though I feel it's important that should be someone who was the best racing driver of their generation.

My top ten list at present -

1. Schumacher
2. Senna
3. Fangio
4. Clark
5. Prost
6. Hamilton
7. Stewart
8. Alonso
9. Ascari
10. Lauda

I generally define "greatness" in this context using 3 indicators - Ability, achievement, impact on the sport. Someone like Lauda IMO would not be top 10 on ability, he was beaten by too many teammates, but his impact on the sport is very large and his statistics good for his era.

Alonso the reverse. n ability I think he's up in the top 5 but as he spent a lot of his career not fighting for wins his legacy is reduced.

Nice detailed post. I'd say two things. You dismiss Hamilton's early dominance too much at Mercedes because you feel the car was too dominant, but I assume you won't hold that against him now in 2020 should he dominate because he's proved himself, so to speak, in measurable circumstances against Vettel in 2017 and 2018 where the gap in class perhaps became clear. But maybe those performances just proved what was always inside Hamilton. 2014 and 2015 were impressive, I'd say, and it's not like he didn't put in stellar seasons before then such as 2010 and especially 2012, where if he was worse than Alonso it wasn't by much.

Secondly, I think the argument about being best as a pure driver, say, in an era can be faulty. Some eras just have more top-end talent than others. Maybe Schumacher wouldn't have been the "best" in his era if he and Alonso's primes has coincided for many years. We don't know, of course, but we do know that Schumacher inherited an era devoid of Champions at the start of his reign. The best example I can think of is the perception of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in tennis, who are all considered to not just be greater but also better than Sampras by a majority. Yet of course they can't all be the best of their era, yet Sampras was the best of his. Sampras didn't have any equivalent talent to prove himself against or be potentially exposed by, but Fed, Rafa, Nole have. We could level a similar charge at Schumacher, who, once he got going, had his stiffest competition in Hakkinen. Towards the end of his prime or even after it, he was done by Alonso.

So I don't think the "having to be the best in an era" notion always stands to reason, but it is a more objective (less subjective) measure to use that, which compares peers, than to use something which creates fantasies and assumptions across eras with no tangible evidence. Yet the perception is clear in the tennis example I gave above, and I do agree that all 3 are overall greater and better than Sampras and that after a weak era tennis saw a golden generation the likes of which hadn't been seen since Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall.

Sure but to use your Tennis analogy you'd wouldn't pick one of the three you consider inferior to be the greatest?

This conversation is all about opinions which for me is what makes it so fascinating. I believe a reasonable person could put Hamilton anywhere from 1st to 8th greatest and have fair justification for their choice.

I agree that i find it very hard to rate 2014-16. I am of the opinion that a driver performing at GOAT level would not have dropped as many points, poles and wins to Nico Rosberg. Now, Rosberg is a bit of a tough driver to rate because despite 11 seasons in F1 he's almost impossible to benchmark against anyone but Hamilton himself which is obviously useless if the reason you're trying to establish how good he is is to donkeys Hamilton. It's circular. So whilst I'm pretty confident of my stated opinion - That the likes of Senna or Schumacher would never have let that amount of wins go begging to a driver nobody considers in a GOAT conversation, I accept that I could be wrong on that. Purely because Rosberg might be a lot better than I think. Some supporting evidence I would add is that Hamilton also lost a lot of results to Button. A very good driver but a driver of a standard that I think Schumacher or Senna would have made mincemeat of.

Regardless to any of that even if Hamilton hit full stride in 2014 that's still a lot of years spent slightly under GOAT level before 2014 bringing his career average down.

I think you cannot write it that strong since Schumacher indeed partnered Rosberg ...

Not Schumacher Mk1.0 though

True. But the "never" still don't match the facts. That's all what I was saying.

[mikeyg123]

Hamilton's record against Rosberg is indeed telling. As is the fact that in the 7 races that Brundle and Schumacher both finished as teammates Brundle was ahead in 3 of them.

Not all on merit though. Silverstone MS had a crash with a backmarker (Brundle in fairness had a brilliant race, he was leading both Senna and Schumacher for 50 or so laps), in Portugal MS had to start from the back and also had a puncture and in Italy he messed it up (his own fault) and had to pit for repairs. 1 season vs 4 is a much smaller pool though, so maybe not 100% comparable.

Exactly, context is important. Let's look at all of Rosberg's wins while team mates with Hamilton:

2013
Monaco - a great performance by Rosberg
Britain - Hamilton’s tyres exploded when leading the race, which he was expected to win.

2014
Australia - Hamilton Retired due to engine problem
Monaco - Rosberg cheated in qualifying
Austria - Hamilton 1.9 second behind at end of race
Germany - Hamilton brake failure in qualifying, started 14th
Brazil - Hamilton finished 1.4 second behind Rosberg

2015
Spain - Poor hamilton performance
Monaco - Hamilton winning until poor pit strategy call
Austria - poor hamilton performance (3.8 seconds behind on track)
Mexico / Brazil / Abu Dhabi - Hamilton had won the WDC in previous race and was coasting

2016
Australia - turn 1 incident for Hamilton dropped him to 6th from pole and damaged front wing.
Bahrain -Collision with bottas dropped Hamilton to 9th on lap 1
China - Hamilton started 22nd due to not being able to take part in qualifying
Spain - Hamilton turbo failed in qualifying meaning he could not take part in Q3, started 10th
Baku - Hamilton crashed in qualifying, so started 10th
Belgium - Engine penalties meant Hamilton started 21st on the grid
Italy - Poor start (suspected car issue) after outqualifying Rosberg by 0.5second dropped him right down the field
Singapore - can’t remember this one, but we’ll count it as a poor Hamilton performance
Japan - Another poor start dropped Hamilton to 8th into turn 1

I have put in bold the races where Hamilton was indisputably outperformed by Rosberg and in highlighter put races where he was indisputably had circumstances that took him out of contention for the race win.

Schumacher had a number 2 who was not allowed to challenge him during his Ferrari time. Hamilton wouldn't have won Austria 2002. You can't just say "Rosberg wasn't a great but has X wins more than Hamilton therefore Hamilton isn't a GOAT" without digging into the story more than that. Even in 2016 Hamilton drove better than Rosberg - the team principals ranked Hamilton outright best driver, with Rosberg 3rd that year. That doesn't mean Rosberg didn't deserve to win the WDC, or to win the races he did - but it reflects the fact that despite not winning the championship it was known at the time that Hamilton had done a much better job.

But I never did say that. So you're creating a bit of a strawman here.

It's a small part of one of the factors that make me put Hamilton behind some others. I stand by it to. A lot of the issues that stopped Hamilton winning were of his own making. You didn't get that with Schumacher or Senna. They would never have let that happen. At least not as much. It was a common theme from his time with Button as well. During that stage of his career he gave up too many good results to his team mate. Now he's doing to Bottas what Schumacher did to Barrichello or Senna did to Berger. Both very good drivers in their own right and at least as good in there time as Bottas and probably as Rosberg as well. It's true to say Hamilton wouldn't have won Austria 2002 but then for balance you should probably mention he wouldn't have given up Inday 02 or Malaysia 99.

But as I say, I wouldn't get stuck on this. It's only a small part of a part of the reasoning.

[Invade]

Schumacher

The problem with Schumacher is the hugely rigged intra-team conditions and inheriting a blank slate at the dawn of his prime. But this also contributes to stats of dominance and seeming infallibility which gives the impression he wouldn't have let things happen that perhaps some other drivers, namely here Hamilton, might have.

His conditions inherently engender an air of supreme dominance but also a sense of a free(r) ride and being (relatively) unproven, having erected his empire on the wastelands left in the wake of the exits of the legends of the prior era.

Lacking any near-equivalent rival added to an air of dominance which was already profound in having weak intra-team challenges.

Positives: Supreme and constant superiority over rivals and teammates
Negatives: Question marks over the strength of the era and direct benchmarks who could provide stiffer resistance — something of an unknown quantity or quality... whatever.

Hamilton

The problem with Hamilton is that: in having (much) stronger intra-team challenges and experiencing something far closer to operational equality within his teams, he has been unable to express a similar level of dominance to Schumacher on a perennial basis — if we go to the more extreme of Mikey's interpretation the upshot is that Hamilton's prime really only started in 2017. Let's for arguments sake suppose that to be the case — is it not curious that this coincides with having Bottas as a teammate instead of Rosberg, or Button? But moving on...

Further, he also entered into an era with champions and ascended alongside other top tier talents, or talent singular depending on how much credit you give Vettel — is Vettel any better than Hakkinen?

These conditions made it hard for anyone to shine with the dominance of a Schumacher on a constant basis

Positives: proven against higher tier talents and tougher intra-team battles with world champions
Negatives: unable to separate to the degree Schumacher did, as it would take a superhuman effort given the (what I argue to be tougher) competition and thresholds... or whatever.

Senna

The problem with Senna is that his career was cut short. This deprived us of what could have been a legendary rivalry between Schumacher who arguably ended up benefiting richly, and it deprived Senna of the sort of numbers which would have made his GOAT case significantly stronger. But nonetheless his case is strong!

Senna went up against another legend in Prost, who was no slouch, and he often destroyed Prost on pure pace. It seems to me that Senna was a whole level above prost in terms of pure speed and skill — but how is this possible?

Maybe it was possible because Senna was that one guy who, in Hamilton's situation, could have produced a Schumacher level of separation in performance? Maybe Senna had the combination of fighting proven legendary competition in his era as a whole and versus Prost as a teammate, AND the abundantly apparent dominance of pure skill and ability as a driver anyway?

Positives: seems to largely fill in the misgivings of the scenarios of Schumacher and Hamilton
Negatives: A bit like Bjorn Borg, we didn't see nearly as much as we could have done, and thus his ledger is in many ways far inferior to that of either Hamilton or Schumacher.