planetf1.com

It's lap 63 of the 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix. Hamilton, having held fourth for much of the race, is caught out in the damp conditions and is usurped by Sebastian Vettel, falling to fifth - the position he needs to take the World Championship. The pair pit for intermediates and much of the field follow them into the long Sao Paulo track's pitlane. Trailing Sebastian, the McLaren driver is unable to keep to the gearbox of the German's STR3 as he slips and slides through the circuits many undulations. Approaching Juncao, the venue's final major corner, Robert Kubica, having followed the pair for a number of laps, attempts to take advantage of Lewis slipping once again on the waterlogged tarmac. But the Pole attacks too early, and much too fast, and follows Hamilton's lead. This time, though, the BMW driver is mere inches deeper into the corner than his rival. Kubica, unable to turn, first tags the Briton's sidepod to little effect. Moments later, Lewis's rear tyre makes contact with Robert's front and the Championship contender's car jumps up in the air, crashing down shortly after but with a visibly damaged floor, suspension and a tyre hanging from its rim. The championship is over, Massa takes the victory and the title.

Of course, alternative history and a very lengthy way to approach my question, but the question follows:

How would you rate Lewis Hamilton if he was without a World Championship in 2013?

How do you think the media would rate Lewis Hamilton if he was without a World Championship in 2013?

I think people would still rate him as one of the best, even without a WDC to his name, the on,y major difference there would be is that all of the coverage (definitely in the UK at least) would just be saying when's hen going to win his first WDC rather than when will he win a 2nd WDC.

Oh Boy! I think you've just taken the jumbo economy family-sized can of worms and opened it with a stick of dynamite!
It is a cliche a lot of people like to use that no-one remembers who came second. Clearly around here many DO remember who came second, some are bitter that first became second because of fifth.
I guess it all depends on your definition of "rated" I give you Stirling Moss as an example of a highly rated driver who did not win a championship - and Chris Amon a highly rated driver who failed to win Grand Prix.
I think it is a question, the answer to which can never be known; there are just too many variables to take into account.

I think some would call him the new Stirling Moss, while others would lament the conspiracy by the FIA and some teams to keep the black man from winning.

It would be nasty.

His fans would say he was still the messiah. The modern day Moss. The man everyone conspired against.

Everyone else would say he threw away two titles in a row and missed perhaps his best chances of a title.

As it is he has a title and IMO he's still underachieved. He should have at least two, perhaps three. If he retires as a single WDC then I don't think he'll be too chuffed.

Blinky and Laura have it spot on

The decision in spa by the fia would have been discussed to death (as if it was not). We would have seen new threads every day on that in 2015

Hami and nico (the scherzinger) would have split a few more times. May be he would have dated lady gaga

I'd have been even more disgusted with the Spa penalty.

As for Hamilton having only won one title, it's fair to say that car wise, he hasn't really had a chance since '08. His driving, apart from a terrible 2011, has been very good indeed. I'm sure he'd still be seen as a member of F1's elite along with Vettel and Alonso.

keenf1fan wrote:Hami and nico (the scherzinger) would have split a few more times. May be he would have dated lady gaga

Hey, variety is the spice of life can't fault him for that

He would have lost the WDC by less points than the Spa penalty cost him, I think that would have been an ongoing issue.
Regardless of my opinions of the wrongs or rights of that penalty, I'm glad that the WDC was not decided by those points.

I think he would be rated as a good driver, but someone who can't finish the deal in the final races. He would have thrown away his best two shots at a title, despite going into the final two races both times in the lead.

Also, the FIA would have receive a lot of crap for Spa 2008.

That being said, he still hasn't achieved the level of success that his talent deserves IMO, but that, is unfortunately how the world of F1 works sometimes

phyz wrote:I'd have been even more disgusted with the Spa penalty.

As for Hamilton having only won one title, it's fair to say that car wise, he hasn't really had a chance since '08. His driving, apart from a terrible 2011, has been very good indeed. I'm sure he'd still be seen as a member of F1's elite along with Vettel and Alonso.

I'd say he has had least had chances to add a second title, even the odds have been stacked against him. Even though he hasn't had the best car he's had one that's allowed him the chance to at least challenge for the title in 2010 and 2012. I think the criticism often aimed at him for missing out in 2010 is pretty unfair, he made no more mistakes than Vettel that year and far fewer than Alonso did.

Anyway I'm not sure he'd be rated all that differently to be honest. Any driver who's won multiple races in every season he's competed and challenged for four titles would still be considered one of the best.

I have to agree that the scandalous penalty in Spa would be a FAR more contentious issue if Hamilton had not won the title that year.

You realize that this is an exercise that can be carried out with any driver on the grid, don't you?

How would Vettel be rated if BMW kept him in 2007 instead of returning him to the Red Bull family?

How would Button be rated if Ross Brawn didn't save the Honda team in 2009?

How would Kimi be rated if McLaren hadn't melted down in 2007?

You can literally do it with anyone...

Where would I be if my parents bought me a go-kart when I was 7?

sandman1347 wrote:You realize that this is an exercise that can be carried out with any driver on the grid, don't you?

How would Vettel be rated if BMW kept him in 2007 instead of returning him to the Red Bull family?

How would Button be rated if Ross Brawn didn't save the Honda team in 2009?

How would Kimi be rated if McLaren hadn't melted down in 2007?

You can literally do it with anyone...

Where would I be if my parents bought me a go-kart when I was 7?

For me it changes nothing, but he would have lost 3 WDCs in the last race, 2 from a healthy position. Mansell-esque.

In the same vein, if Felipe Massa had 1 WDC to his name now it makes no difference, he has been useless for the last 3 seasons for whatever reason.

I can not think of a driver that took a WDC battle to the final race or 2 or more occasions and never actually won one? Is there such a driver?

Assuming Anthony Hamilton's plan to sneak into Timo Glock's garage with a very fat unmarked envelope hadn't come off, Lewis by now would be regarded as the man who didn't quite match Jacques.

Great post Toby! It's a really interesting question. I think people would still rate Hamilton highly, but without his WDC, he wouldn't be rated as highly and Hamilton might not be as confident (and therefore quick) as a driver. There's no denying that having that box checked probably adds a bit confidence, just like winning one's first race. Hamilton, sans WDC, would probably not be expected to wipe the floor with Rosberg, either, and that would surely affect the media attention that Hamilton gets. For instance, after Hungary, I remember seeing a lot of headlines that made it seem like Hamilton's win was Mercedes's first ever, which is obviously not the case. In terms of media attention, Rosberg's two wins were eclipsed by Hamilton's.

In a similar vein, if Massa were a WDC winner, Alonso probably wouldn't be able to push him around or mentally dominate him as easily. Us spectators would probably have much more faith in Massa and he would probably be a much stronger and confident driver.

Well, Gilles didnt win a WDC and yet he was rated highly, Sir Stirling Moss too.

But he does have a WDC. I don't see the point of the question.

What if Hamilton never won a race or got a podium? How would he be considered?

What if he drove in an HRT? How would he be considered then?

Just seems rather odd to take a mans accomplishments away then start asking questions...

bourbon19 wrote:But he does have a WDC. I don't see the point of the question.

What if Hamilton never won a race or got a podium? How would he be considered?

What if he drove in an HRT? How would he be considered then?

Just seems rather odd to take a mans accomplishments away then start asking questions...

Guia wrote:Assuming Anthony Hamilton's plan to sneak into Timo Glock's garage with a very fat unmarked envelope hadn't come off, Lewis by now would be regarded as the man who didn't quite match Jacques.

Lol you little devil!

Whether Lewis (or any other driver) does or does not win a WDC makes no difference to my estimation of them. Imo Hamilton has been top-rate from day one in 2007, and has continued, with a slight dip in 2011 when he made some uncharacteristic driving/judgement errors.

As other posters point out, Moss is rightly still regarded as one of the best. Results, especially wins, are far more important Imo than points-winners. Hulme's WDC in 1967 with 2 wins to Clark's 4; Hawthorn's 2 wins in 1958 vs Moss's 5; in 2005 Imo Raikkonen/McLaren was faster than the Alonso/Renault package but three of his results were ruined by grid penalties;Brabham's 2 WDCs in 1960 and 1966 owed much to Moss's Spa crash and Surtees leaving Ferrari after 2 races; Imo Moss and SUrtees were much fatser drivers. For me WDCs do not count for much in driver assessments.

The FIA's arbitrary points allocation has often resulted in awards going to less deserving drivers. In any case WDCs are won or lost by packages/combinations of car-plus-driver, not purely by drivers or cars or teams. Except when lost by McLaren pitstops in 2012! Imo the Hamilton/McLaren-Merc package could have been WDC; it was most consistenly the fastest package, but for two grids penalties and those slow pitstops.

So bad. Sacked from HRT in mid-'10 IMO

Like others said he would still be highly regarded.
The thought of Massa being WDC and Lewis not is a bit terrifying considering how poor Massa has been since his comeback. And he wasn't really impressive before he joined Ferrari either.

I guess it would only make a difference to those who think being hypothetically crashed into by Robert Kubica would affect Lewis Hamilton's abilities as a driver.

Good question, though. I think, through occasional bad luck and occasional bad judgement, Lewis has fewer championships to his name than he should. Here's hoping he can atone for this by 24.11.13...

Herbalist wrote:So bad. Sacked from HRT in mid-'10 IMO

Hahaha that would be something aye

Lewis, with or without a WDC would be rated very highly and one of the best.. But, the question is, would he have kept performing this well without a WDC? Given that he did, then I don't see a reason for him not to be considered one of the best even without a WDC..

Remember Kimi before 2007?

He would be rated as a very fast driver but not very intelligent nor consistant.
And It would prove the point even further that 2007 was by far the most consistent and steady year for Lewis, thanks to Alonso being there, basically. He surely loved alonso's setups and telemetry.

RacingFan1 wrote:He would be rated as a very fast driver but not very intelligent nor consistant.
And It would prove the point even further that 2007 was by far the most consistent and steady year for Lewis, thanks to Alonso being there, basically. He surely loved alonso's setups and telemetry.

I think his most consistent year was last year tbh

RacingFan1 wrote:He would be rated as a very fast driver but not very intelligent nor consistant.
And It would prove the point even further that 2007 was by far the most consistent and steady year for Lewis, thanks to Alonso being there, basically. He surely loved alonso's setups and telemetry.

What's wrong in leveraging on a double WDC on your rookie year who brought 0.6 seconds to the car on your first year in F1? and ending up beating him using his preferred setup?

Lewis, as Kimi, are the most naturally talented driers on the grid..

I would still rate him as one of the best of the current drivers, the numerous haters would mercilessly attack him for not winning a title to this day.

The UK media would have had a field day since they love it when the Brit loses and would still be kicking him for it.

It would also mean that the title was effectively decided by the Spa penalty which would have been a tragic for the sport.

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:I would still rate him as one of the best of the current drivers, the numerous haters would mercilessly attack him for not winning a title to this day.

The UK media would have had a field day since they love it when the Brit loses and would still be kicking him for it.

It would also mean that the title was effectively decided by the Spa penalty which would have been a tragic for the sport.

People would have gotten over Spa. They got over Crashgate pretty quickly after all and one could argue that perhaps affected Massa's title charge as much as Spa could have impacted Hamilton. That's just the way F1 works, sometimes it is fair and sometimes it is not. That's life.

If Hamilton hadn't won 2008 he would likely have been seen as a huge talent who had never quite delivered on his initial promise. Raikkonen was viewed much the same until 2007, a man who was perhaps the quickest in the field on his very best days but not quite the complete package to win a title.

Laura23 wrote:

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:I would still rate him as one of the best of the current drivers, the numerous haters would mercilessly attack him for not winning a title to this day.

The UK media would have had a field day since they love it when the Brit loses and would still be kicking him for it.

It would also mean that the title was effectively decided by the Spa penalty which would have been a tragic for the sport.

People would have gotten over Spa. They got over Crashgate pretty quickly after all and one could argue that perhaps affected Massa's title charge as much as Spa could have impacted Hamilton. That's just the way F1 works, sometimes it is fair and sometimes it is not. That's life.

If Hamilton hadn't won 2008 he would likely have been seen as a huge talent who had never quite delivered on his initial promise. Raikkonen was viewed much the same until 2007, a man who was perhaps the quickest in the field on his very best days but not quite the complete package to win a title.

I still haven't got over Benetton's traction and launch control and Schuey's "incident" at Adelaide in 1994, people would still be talking about it .

I think Raikkonen was always viewed as one of the best pre-2007 and the only reason he hadn't won title was firstly because his first two seasons in a top car coincided with the Schumacher era (even then he pushed him close in '03) then he had to deal with the fact that Mclaren and Merc seemed to have made a half car, half hand grenade combination that would blow up at the bat of an eyelid.

Anyway, if my aunt had balls and all that; Lewis has won a title, so all this is pretty meaningless speculation.

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:

Laura23 wrote:

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:I would still rate him as one of the best of the current drivers, the numerous haters would mercilessly attack him for not winning a title to this day.

The UK media would have had a field day since they love it when the Brit loses and would still be kicking him for it.

It would also mean that the title was effectively decided by the Spa penalty which would have been a tragic for the sport.

People would have gotten over Spa. They got over Crashgate pretty quickly after all and one could argue that perhaps affected Massa's title charge as much as Spa could have impacted Hamilton. That's just the way F1 works, sometimes it is fair and sometimes it is not. That's life.

If Hamilton hadn't won 2008 he would likely have been seen as a huge talent who had never quite delivered on his initial promise. Raikkonen was viewed much the same until 2007, a man who was perhaps the quickest in the field on his very best days but not quite the complete package to win a title.

I still haven't got over Benetton's traction and launch control and Schuey's "incident" at Adelaide in 1994, people would still be talking about it .

I think Raikkonen was always viewed as one of the best pre-2007 and the only reason he hadn't won title was firstly because his first two seasons in a top car coincided with the Schumacher era (even then he pushed him close in '03) then he had to deal with the fact that Mclaren and Merc seemed to have made a half car, half hand grenade combination that would blow up at the bat of an eyelid.

As for your first point that is your problem I'm afraid. F1 has always had controversies over the years and it has got over each and every one.

Your second point, hard to argue tbh. The car means as much as the driver these days and you can't argue that Raikkonen couldn't do much better in 2003 and possibly 2005. After he won his title in 2007 though he did seem to just give up the ghost a little which was very disappointing IMO.

I'd like to add that my view on how Hamilton would have been viewed isn't marred by my own opinion of him. I just think he would have been seen as an underachiever if he hadnt won 2008. You know how the press are, you also know how fickle many F1 fans can be. But just think imagine if Hamilton had no titles and Vettel still had his three? Would that be a fair look at their respective talents? Of course it wouldn't.

Another point if Hamilton hadnt won in 2008, would he be the driver with the most race wins without a title (assuming he still won all those races).

I think the same holds for all dirvers.

Alonso could quite easily be a 5 times WDC or a no time WDC. That is how fine the margins are. He has gone into the last race with a chance of winning the title on 4 occasions and won 1. If Kimi did not have 4 grid penalties and retire from the lead 3 times in 2005, Alonso would not have won that one either. Although 2005 is a little bit of a stretch the others have all be won by the finest of margins.

The other side of the coin is, if Kimi or Massa had had a failure on their car in Brazil 2007 Alonso was champion. Vettel was so close to a DNF in Brazil in 2012 that would have given him that one and 2010 if he had not made such an uncharacteristic bad start in the title decider in Abu Dhabi or just got the strategy right he would have won the title.

The margins in 2006,2007,2010,2012 have been ultra fine, if he was a 5 time WDC he would be regarded top 3 of all time by now. It shows how fickle we are really as his talent level is exactly the same.

The other side is how would you rate Hamilton if he had 2 WDC's?

Personally, i don't place so much importance on championships when rating drivers. It's too dependent on circumstances outside of the drivers control, and quite often championships are lost/won by a margin of a few points.

I rate Schumacher as the best because of what i saw him do in seasons like 96, 97 and 98 (taking an ill handling underperforming car to many race victories), not because of what he did in 2002 or 2004. If Hamilton had 0 championships i would still rate him as one of the best drivers in the sport.

lamo wrote:I think the same holds for all dirvers.

Alonso could quite easily be a 5 times WDC or a no time WDC. That is how fine the margins are. He has gone into the last race with a chance of winning the title on 4 occasions and won 1. If Kimi did not have 4 grid penalties and retire from the lead 3 times in 2005, Alonso would not have won that one either. Although 2005 is a little bit of a stretch the others have all be won by the finest of margins.

The other side of the coin is, if Kimi or Massa had had a failure on their car in Brazil 2007 Alonso was champion. Vettel was so close to a DNF in Brazil in 2012 that would have given him that one and 2010 if he had not made such an uncharacteristic bad start in the title decider in Abu Dhabi or just got the strategy right he would have won the title.

The margins in 2006,2007,2010,2012 have been ultra fine, if he was a 5 time WDC he would be regarded top 3 of all time by now. It shows how fickle we are really as his talent level is exactly the same.

OT but the bad start was actually quite characteristic of Alonso that season. He had quite poor starts in Monza, Silverstone and Melbourne for example and rarely gained places. It was only once he got a new clutch in Barcelona the following year that his starts became good.

The bad start did not cost Alonso the championship per se, but it did put more pressure on himself and the team. If he retained 3rd place off the start, he would know he could lose 1 place and still be champion. Being 4th meant that if he lost a place, it would all be over.

I think he'd be rated very much the same, just as if he'd have won in '07 and '08, i don't think it would make much difference to how people see him