986 replies to this topic

[taran]

F127, on 30 Jan 2024 - 12:10, said:

I totally get your point. However, I respectfully disagree, greatness is based on more than stats. Heroic wins or outperforming a defined number 1 in a team is exactly what defines brilliance. Most good drivers with a great team behind them can win in the fastest car on the grid. 

You make a good point. Which raises the question, what exactly defines the greatest driver?

Obviously, not just stats or we'd all crown Hamilton.

Not just heroic drives or it would be Lauda for Monza 1976 or Moss or Villeneuve for some of their drives.

 

Some drivers had the good fortune to have great, dominant cars. Does that detract from their greatness? Or is it just personal preference that determines our top 10 standings?

 

Senna had the 1988 McLaren. Nobody holds that against him.

Vettel had the blown diffuser Red Bulls which were not as dominant. Yet, he is not even on the list....

[eab]

garoidb, on 30 Jan 2024 - 11:10, said:

How robust is it to judge either of those drivers long careers on that one season? If the initial promise was genuinely fulfilled, there would be no need to rest arguments so heavily on that season. Arguments based on his later career have more merit, in my view. 

The first sentence and question indicates that my point hasn't been made clear enough.

 

The premise was that Alonso, an already proven and known quantity by then, did not thrash the in F1 unproven and unknown rookie Hamilton. Even Alonso himself did not expect to have any trouble dismantling Hamilton, or for Hamilton to be even a factor of importance/performance, saying to Ron Dennis preseason: "So you're not interested in the WCC, huh?" (which in hindsight was both ironic and strangely, prophetic)

By holding more than his own, Hamilton immediately signalled that he was quality stuff, because you simply wouldn't stand a chance against Alonso otherwise. So the "judgement" here isn't so much about Alonso, as I said he was already proven, but a firm statement of Hamilton being the real deal.

 

So, wrt your second sentence, that (the above) was simply the whole point of explicitly mentioning that one year. And actually, to continue on your second and third sentence, I'd say that "initial promise" has been genuinely fulfilled, and again from both sides. Hamilton went on to set new records, while Alonso continued being the again and again proven monster competitor, confirming the status he'd already established for himself which acted as an initial yardstick for Hamilton.

[messy]

Over the years I've kinda been round the houses on this one arguing that Schumacher is 'greater' than Hamilton regardless of the stats (which I do still believe), that Senna's reputation and legacy is boosted by the manner of his death and that he was pushed hard by Prost, blah blah blah as if I'm determined to argue that 'great' drivers aren't as far ahead of their peers as people make out. And they're probably not, but the thing is, where's the shame in being pushed by Prost? He was great too. And actually having revisited 1989 Senna completely had Prost covered most of the time and the points table doesn't reflect it. So I'm coming back round to Senna, because-

+ legacy, legend. Monaco '88 quali, Estoril '85, the battles with Prost.

+ character - intensity, passion, mystique, love/hate.

+ went head to head with THE best driver of his era and beat him both on the track and politically.

+ incredible one lap qualifying speed, raw talent, the kind of driver who captures the imagination.

+ that yellow helmet in the McLaren.

Senna kinda encapsulates the kind of 'fever' that I really miss from modern F1. So does Schumacher, especially on his early Ferrari days, but throw the stats out of the window, who cares. Its Senna and probably always has been for me.

[Yamamoto]

JG, on 30 Jan 2024 - 13:08, said:

1950’s Fangio / Ascari
1960’s Clark / Stewart
1970’s Lauda / Fittipaldi
1980’s Prost / Piquet
1990’s Senna / Schumacher
2000’s Alonso / Raikkonen
2010’s Vettel / Hamilton
2020’s Verstappen / ?

 

Magnussen.

[aportinga]

Of the list...

 

1. Nuvolari

2. Clark

3. Schumacher

4. Prost

5. Stewart

 

I like the older guys because they had to race in horrid conditions that the new guys would never race today. Mentally - that had to be a large part of driving back in the day and has to be taken in account IMO.

 

The most significant issues of modern racing are speed and politics.

[aportinga]

George Costanza, on 30 Jan 2024 - 00:11, said:

That's pretty good example. Michael was relentless in his desire for success. I think that's why he was so successful at Ferrari.

 

Agreed as well. I see Max as a Schumacher and Hamilton as a Clark in this battle. Both are great to watch for different reasons.

[Cliff]

For now Michael, but Max has already done things never seen before and I feel he's only getting started. His current 3 or 4 season streak is the most scary consistent I've ever seen (since 1994). When all things are said and done I truly think he'll take that crown. 

[BleuMurmure]

To me the best driver is who performs great under different conditions, teams.

 

Verstappen is too recent and Red Bull only..

Hamilton is a Mercedes guy, without any desire to peek out of his comfortable walled garden.

Alonso tried many teams, achieved great results, but still, "just" 2 championships

Schumacher 3 teams, 2 with great results, but had his terrible antics...

 

So I voted Fangio.

[ensign14]

BleuMurmure, on 30 Jan 2024 - 14:44, said:

To me the best driver is who performs great under different conditions, teams.

 

...

So I voted Fangio.

You could tweak that another way though - Fangio was not interested in dragging a fallen team back up to the front, but always cherrypicked the best available drives...

 

...but of course there was a reason why everyone wanted Fangio.

[juicy sushi]

ANF, on 29 Jan 2024 - 22:05, said:

Schumacher was great but let's not forget that people like Jean Todt, Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne played a part in Ferrari's success.

I'd argue most of the success was theirs.  The secret was basically giving the Benetton brain trust a proper budget and no outside distractions.  Ferrari's problems always begin when Ferrari management is allowed to make decisions about the team.

[Anderis]

taran, on 30 Jan 2024 - 08:43, said:

I think Hamilton is getting a bit too much credit in the opening post for “beating Alonso”.

Hamilton did a magnificent job as a rookie, stellar preparation notwithstanding, but Alonso had to get used to Bridgestones and then was actively opposed by his own team (Ron Dennis famously saying they are racing Alonso with Hamilton). The FIA even needed to place an observer in the team to ensure he wouldn’t be sent out with only three wheels attached…..Not a situation conducive to strong performances IMO.

 

So I would consider Alonso matching Hamilton’s points total in 2007 after falling out with Dennis and the team more a sign of his greatness as a racer than Hamilton’s….

The only reason why McLaren was even able "race Alonso with Hamilton" is that because Hamilton was so close on performance from the beginning that a close battle was even possible. Had Alonso been as comfortably ahead as one of the GOAT candidates would be expected to be ahead of a (even the most talented) rookie, the season wouldn't have got as heated. I'm not convinced by "had to get used to Bridgestones" excuse either. All drivers need to constantly get adapted to new equipment. It's a sign of the greatest drivers that they don't get derailed too much by such things. Hamilton didn't get his first F1 test until September 2006 and McLaren was still using Michelins in 2006 so it's not like he had years of experience on Bridgestones compared to Alonso.

 

Sorry, there's no way I can see how 2007 can be more a sign of Alonso's greatness than Hamilton's.

[PlatenGlass]

Also it's not just about total points. Watching the season, I'd rate Hamilton's performance higher. He looked to have the title until it derailed in the last couple of rounds.

[TMC44]

messy, on 30 Jan 2024 - 13:30, said:

Over the years I've kinda been round the houses on this one arguing that Schumacher is 'greater' than Hamilton regardless of the stats (which I do still believe), that Senna's reputation and legacy is boosted by the manner of his death and that he was pushed hard by Prost, blah blah blah as if I'm determined to argue that 'great' drivers aren't as far ahead of their peers as people make out. And they're probably not, but the thing is, where's the shame in being pushed by Prost? He was great too. And actually having revisited 1989 Senna completely had Prost covered most of the time and the points table doesn't reflect it. So I'm coming back round to Senna, because-

+ legacy, legend. Monaco '88 quali, Estoril '85, the battles with Prost.

+ character - intensity, passion, mystique, love/hate.

+ went head to head with THE best driver of his era and beat him both on the track and politically.

+ incredible one lap qualifying speed, raw talent, the kind of driver who captures the imagination.

+ that yellow helmet in the McLaren.

Senna kinda encapsulates the kind of 'fever' that I really miss from modern F1. So does Schumacher, especially on his early Ferrari days, but throw the stats out of the window, who cares. Its Senna and probably always has been for me.

I do not think his death enhanced his reputation. I watched Senna track side, and trust me he was regarded as something very special when he was racing FF1600, which he certainly was. Although Rick Morris did beat him as he did many a youngster who went on to F1. 

[IrvTheSwerve]

BleuMurmure, on 30 Jan 2024 - 14:44, said:

To me the best driver is who performs great under different conditions, teams.

 

Verstappen is too recent and Red Bull only..

Hamilton is a Mercedes guy, without any desire to peek out of his comfortable walled garden.

Alonso tried many teams, achieved great results, but still, "just" 2 championships

Schumacher 3 teams, 2 with great results, but had his terrible antics...

 

So I voted Fangio.

To be fair to Lewis he moved from McLaren to Mercedes in 2013 in a move that many thought was crazy.

[F127]

taran, on 30 Jan 2024 - 13:13, said:

You make a good point. Which raises the question, what exactly defines the greatest driver?

Obviously, not just stats or we'd all crown Hamilton.

Not just heroic drives or it would be Lauda for Monza 1976 or Moss or Villeneuve for some of their drives.

 

Some drivers had the good fortune to have great, dominant cars. Does that detract from their greatness? Or is it just personal preference that determines our top 10 standings?

 

Senna had the 1988 McLaren. Nobody holds that against him.

Vettel had the blown diffuser Red Bulls which were not as dominant. Yet, he is not even on the list....

 

It's tough isn't it, what is the criteria for a GOAT? But anyway... it makes these discussion so fun.

 

I'd say Senna has the benefit in that his teammate in 1988 was already a world champion who had parity of equipment and Senna did not have number 1 status. Plus, he had already proved immense at Toleman and Lotus prior to having the dominant car.

 

Vettel by all rights should be on the list, I think if he had managed that WDC with Ferrari and then retired he would have been held in higher regards. 

 

On a related note, I think LH really should go/have gone to Ferrari, gaining the WDC there would probably seal the GOAT title more than another with Merc.

[garoidb]

eab, on 30 Jan 2024 - 13:26, said:

The first sentence and question indicates that my point hasn't been made clear enough.

 

The premise was that Alonso, an already proven and known quantity by then, did not thrash the in F1 unproven and unknown rookie Hamilton. Even Alonso himself did not expect to have any trouble dismantling Hamilton, or for Hamilton to be even a factor of importance/performance, saying to Ron Dennis preseason: "So you're not interested in the WCC, huh?" (which in hindsight was both ironic and strangely, prophetic)

By holding more than his own, Hamilton immediately signalled that he was quality stuff, because you simply wouldn't stand a chance against Alonso otherwise. So the "judgement" here isn't so much about Alonso, as I said he was already proven, but a firm statement of Hamilton being the real deal.

 

So, wrt your second sentence, that (the above) was simply the whole point of explicitly mentioning that one year. And actually, to continue on your second and third sentence, I'd say that "initial promise" has been genuinely fulfilled, and again from both sides. Hamilton went on to set new records, while Alonso continued being the again and again proven monster competitor, confirming the status he'd already established for himself which acted as an initial yardstick for Hamilton.

 

There's an assumption that Alonso was at full strength immediately in the new team if he is considered such a reliable yardstick. Lewis himself later lost a title to a team-mate immediately after winning two successive titles, with no team change involved. Was it his best season and a consistent yardstick? 

 

For the second point, has Lewis done anything equally impressive since? If so, why does this season get mentioned so much when he has had much longer partnerships and more successful seasons?

[Sterzo]

TMC44, on 30 Jan 2024 - 15:35, said:

I do not think his death enhanced his reputation. I watched Senna track side, and trust me he was regarded as something very special when he was racing FF1600, which he certainly was. Although Rick Morris did beat him as he did many a youngster who went on to F1. 

Now there's one to consider. How about if Criterion Number One were: sustaining competitive ability over the longest possible time? He also qualifies if we follow the X beat Y who beat Z logic so commonly argued. Rick Morris for GOAT!

[Risil]

ensign14, on 30 Jan 2024 - 14:55, said:

You could tweak that another way though - Fangio was not interested in dragging a fallen team back up to the front, but always cherrypicked the best available drives...

 

Who would that've been in the 1950s? Bugatti?

[George Costanza]

juicy sushi, on 30 Jan 2024 - 15:06, said:

I'd argue most of the success was theirs. The secret was basically giving the Benetton brain trust a proper budget and no outside distractions. Ferrari's problems always begin when Ferrari management is allowed to make decisions about the team.

Absolutely true.

[George Costanza]

messy, on 30 Jan 2024 - 13:30, said:

Over the years I've kinda been round the houses on this one arguing that Schumacher is 'greater' than Hamilton regardless of the stats (which I do still believe), that Senna's reputation and legacy is boosted by the manner of his death and that he was pushed hard by Prost, blah blah blah as if I'm determined to argue that 'great' drivers aren't as far ahead of their peers as people make out. And they're probably not, but the thing is, where's the shame in being pushed by Prost? He was great too. And actually having revisited 1989 Senna completely had Prost covered most of the time and the points table doesn't reflect it. So I'm coming back round to Senna, because-

+ legacy, legend. Monaco '88 quali, Estoril '85, the battles with Prost.

+ character - intensity, passion, mystique, love/hate.

+ went head to head with THE best driver of his era and beat him both on the track and politically.

+ incredible one lap qualifying speed, raw talent, the kind of driver who captures the imagination.

+ that yellow helmet in the McLaren.

Senna kinda encapsulates the kind of 'fever' that I really miss from modern F1. So does Schumacher, especially on his early Ferrari days, but throw the stats out of the window, who cares. Its Senna and probably always has been for me.

Gordon Murray always maintained that Senna was significantly better than Alain. And he would know he worked with both.

[mclarensmps]

If Alonso is in this poll, then I'm personally offended that Hakkinen is not. 

Edited by mclarensmps, 30 January 2024 - 17:03.

[DS27]

Schumacher for me (Michael, not Ralf)

[JeanAlesi27]

mclarensmps, on 30 Jan 2024 - 17:02, said:

If Alonso is in this poll, then I'm personally offended that Hakkinen is not. 

 

Either is Vettel.   I'd say Fernando rates higher than both...  but I still love Mika.  

[aportinga]

TMC44, on 30 Jan 2024 - 15:35, said:

I do not think his death enhanced his reputation. I watched Senna track side, and trust me he was regarded as something very special when he was racing FF1600, which he certainly was. Although Rick Morris did beat him as he did many a youngster who went on to F1. 

 

Agreed. - but... What his death did seem to do is erase all the times he threw himself out of races he was winning with ease. I mean How could the best driver in the world ever do that?

[ensign14]

George Costanza, on 30 Jan 2024 - 16:53, said:

Gordon Murray always maintained that Senna was significantly better than Alain. And he would know he worked with both.

Yes, but Senna was a serial cheat.

[TMC44]

aportinga, on 30 Jan 2024 - 17:26, said:

Agreed. - but... What his death did seem to do is erase all the times he threw himself out of races he was winning with ease. I mean How could the best driver in the world ever do that?

I am not saying he was the best, i Was saying he was special. I think this GOAT thing shows a lack of understanding about the sport. How on earth can you compare a driver from the 1930s to a present day driver, totally different times, which to me is beyond compare. Just a personal view.

You say how could the best driver in the world throw himself out of a race, it happens, even to Hamilton.

You could also say why would, as some are calling Schumacher, the best driver in the world drive in to other drivers on purpose? And not just in F1 as Derek Warwick found out just a few weeks after his brother  Paul was killed. There is a very emotional interview on youtube where Warwick talks about it, worth a watch. Sorry have not got the link.

[Sterzo]

TMC44, on 30 Jan 2024 - 17:51, said:

I am not saying he was the best, i Was saying he was special. I think this GOAT thing shows a lack of understanding about the sport. How on earth can you compare a driver from the 1930s to a present day driver, totally different times, which to me is beyond compare. Just a personal view.

You say how could the best driver in the world throw himself out of a race, it happens, even to Hamilton.

You could also say why would, as some are calling Schumacher, the best driver in the world drive in to other drivers on purpose? And not just in F1 as Derek Warwick found out just a few weeks after his brother  Paul was killed. There is a very emotional interview on youtube where Warwick talks about it, worth a watch. Sorry have not got the link.

Which touches on the question raised by others - whether sportsmanship comes into it. Had I ruled the sport as dictator, Schumacher would have lost his licence and never made F1. As I argued in court (well, the pub actually), why let someone like that race? There are plenty of others eager to fill the seats, who don't resort to such actions. Same applied to Senna once he edged Prost towards the Estoril pit wall - sorry, no place for you in racing, out you go. We don't need you.

[PlatenGlass]

aportinga, on 30 Jan 2024 - 17:26, said:

Agreed. - but... What his death did seem to do is erase all the times he threw himself out of races he was winning with ease. I mean How could the best driver in the world ever do that?

Were there that many?

[DW46]

If we were are including fair racing than Clark / Hamilton / Moss move up whilst Schumacher / Senna move down.

[juicy sushi]

George Costanza, on 30 Jan 2024 - 16:53, said:

Gordon Murray always maintained that Senna was significantly better than Alain. And he would know he worked with both.

Gordon also claims he designed the MP4/4 and the other McLaren people didn't do anything.  So...

[Taxi]

Oh that's so interesting debating this! 

 

Anyway it's kind of very complex because the great champions raced in diferent eras and with very different machines, in what may be seen as a diferent sport alltogether from 1950 to 2024. We need to have in consideration the cars, politics, age, teams, reliability, other drivers,  it's Schumacher, weather conditions and type of circuits alongside developing skills, courage and aproaches.  

 

It's very difficult to say. 

[noriaki]

ensign14, on 30 Jan 2024 - 14:55, said:

You could tweak that another way though - Fangio was not interested in dragging a fallen team back up to the front, but always cherrypicked the best available drives...

 

...but of course there was a reason why everyone wanted Fangio.

 

His BRM stint and arguably both the Maserati ones go against this rule

[thefinalapex]

eab, on 29 Jan 2024 - 23:39, said:

It doesn't count for him, simply because he hasn't had such seasons. Aren't the '19 and '20 seasons touted as dull and Hamilton-walkovers? So how can they be compared to the Schumacher title challenging years in inferior machinery? You can't have it both ways, now can you?

 

'18 was, even if we're conveniently forgetting the first 30% of the season, as good as any driver from the past? How? By merely matching a left out and departing Ricciardo? Ricciardo even threw in a good bye present in the very last race for good measure, by beating him in quali and dominating him in the race until RB predictably put him on a ridiculous strategy and left him out to dry at the front while others behind him were several seconds a lap faster, claiming they were banking on a safety car or rain in the desert or whatever the BS reason was they came up with. And this all happened while RIC was left out out of all the technical debriefs for half the season, and having an ish load of technical retirements, and already having had to hear how the team would be build around Max and trying to make him the youngest champion and what not for over a year (or two) by then, go figure.

 

I have followed that "partnership" closely and I do and will not (click on and) follow the description of somebody who adheres to the opinion that gives him the most clicks and revenue, recognizing where a big part of his clientele comes from, and who on top of that, has a comical lack of understanding of numbers, as is evidenced by a number of articles.

 

Merelely matching in 2018? Qualifying h2h: 15-6 Races: 8-3 when both finished. All in favour of Verstappen. And now you pick AD 2018 and implying that Ricciardo was better because he was infront of Verstappen for the first time in a while? I tryed to find some information about Ricciardo getting older engines and getting excluded from briefings but could find hardly anything, you have any sources for that? the closest i got was this: https://www.the-race...adly-wants-now/

 

Re the last bolded part: Toto Wolff still says they want a 8th title for Hamilton(and i can understand that sentiment), that doesn't mean that Russell can't win races/championships while Ham is still around same reason why Ricciardo was allowed to win at Red Bull in all those years, even in 2014 against the so called golden child Vettel, the only thing that matters for a top team is performance in the end. Look i am not saying Verstappen is the greatest/best but you can't deny his skill is it? That you don't like him for instance is fine but you don't seem to rate him very much ability wise wich i find a bit baffling. But maybe you do and i misread your posts, if so forget that part     

[Myrvold]

I decided to listen to Murray Walker on this one.
So I voted Nuvolari.

[George Costanza]

juicy sushi, on 30 Jan 2024 - 18:19, said:

Gordon also claims he designed the MP4/4 and the other McLaren people didn't do anything. So...

Ooh. Fair enough.

[George Costanza]

Myrvold, on 30 Jan 2024 - 19:08, said:

I decided to listen to Murray Walker on this one.
So I voted Nuvolari.

I thought Murray said Schumacher or Hamilton?

[Currahee]

George Costanza, on 30 Jan 2024 - 20:33, said:

I thought Murray said Schumacher or Hamilton?

I thought he said Moss.

[Nathan]

aportinga, on 30 Jan 2024 - 14:29, said:

 

I like the older guys because they had to race in horrid conditions that the new guys would never race today. Mentally - that had to be a large part of driving back in the day and has to be taken in account IMO.

 

 

How far back to we go?  I could suggest the drivers from the 60's would never have tolerated the conditions of racing in the 1900, 1910 etc..  A 180hp 1.5 liter F1 car of 1964 is a long way from a 630hp W125 Mercedes on tires with taller sidewalls than tread widths  The 30's surely wins this cock waving battle? The ultimate mix of high speed and 0 safety f***'s.   

 

I question this logic because regardless of era, the top drivers brushed the danger aside.  None wavered.  If top Grand Prix drivers of the 10's, 30's, 50's, 70's didn't quit from the danger, I'd suggest it is inherent in all generations, including the present.  I think this is supported by the fact the sport has had a shock of on-track deaths recently and who gave up? Who, even from junior levels, has organized the press conference to say the danger is too much, and their career is over.

 

Where does one put the mental strain of the current stress levels in F1 from media and the public? Would Jimmy have raced with todays media, photo sessions and travel, or just not bothered?

Edited by Nathan, 30 January 2024 - 21:48.

[JL14]

Useless discussion imo.

 

The only thing worth discussing is the GOHE: God Of His/Her Era, because that is at least to some extent comparable.

 

And otherwise the only answer is: the one who has been most successful/achieved the most success, as that is the one who made it all work in the best possible way for the longest period of time. And since the goal of F1 for drivers is winning the WDC, the correct answer is Michael Schumacher in that case.

(Race wins etc. are not important in this because those opportunities differ too much between the era's. In tennis you also wouldn't determine the GOAT by most games won for example.

 

/Tread closed 

Edited by JL14, 30 January 2024 - 22:32.

[ensign14]

DW46, on 30 Jan 2024 - 18:09, said:

If we were are including fair racing than Clark / Hamilton / Moss move up whilst Schumacher / Senna move down.

I think in terms of "greatest" - not best or fastest - you HAVE to include fair racing.

[Organic]

Hang on, didn't Lewis lie to the stewards?

[frosty125]

I feel like we need to see how MV and LH careers continue. I definitely feel like they could be the GOAT but they are not there yet.

[DW46]

ensign14, on 30 Jan 2024 - 22:49, said:

I think in terms of "greatest" - not best or fastest - you HAVE to include fair racing.

Ah my bad I was answering best 😂

[noikeee]

I think it's a coin toss between Fangio Clark Senna and Schumacher, and I'm only not putting Max there yet because there's a long way to go but I suspect I'll see him the same level once his career's over.

 

It's pretty impossible to distinguish between these guys, they just had something magic that set them way apart of their peers.

 

Hamilton comes close, the number of championships is pretty impressive, the longevity as well (starting from before his all-conquering Mercedes days, in fact in terms of longevity a top 3 would be him Schumacher and Prost maybe), and he also had some magical moments but I just don't think he was the same kind of "holy ****, he's making everyone else look useless lol".

 

The pre-war guys I just don't know enough about and frankly it was such a different sport, can we even tell how good they were?

Edited by noikeee, 30 January 2024 - 23:34.

[New Britain]

ensign14, on 30 Jan 2024 - 12:12, said:

"The fastest thing about the Lotus 25 was Jim Clark."  -Ron Tauranac

So, 'Just add lightness... and Jim Clark.'? 

[lewislorenzo]

taran, on 30 Jan 2024 - 08:43, said:

I think Hamilton is getting a bit too much credit in the opening post for “beating Alonso”.
Hamilton did a magnificent job as a rookie, stellar preparation notwithstanding, but Alonso had to get used to Bridgestones and then was actively opposed by his own team (Ron Dennis famously saying they are racing Alonso with Hamilton). The FIA even needed to place an observer in the team to ensure he wouldn’t be sent out with only three wheels attached…..Not a situation conducive to strong performances IMO.

So I would consider Alonso matching Hamilton’s points total in 2007 after falling out with Dennis and the team more a sign of his greatness as a racer than Hamilton’s….

Amazing spin😂talk about clutching at straws

BleuMurmure, on 30 Jan 2024 - 14:44, said:

To me the best driver is who performs great under different conditions, teams.

Verstappen is too recent and Red Bull only..
Hamilton is a Mercedes guy, without any desire to peek out of his comfortable walled garden.
Alonso tried many teams, achieved great results, but still, "just" 2 championships
Schumacher 3 teams, 2 with great results, but had his terrible antics...

So I voted Fangio.

Hamilton left Mclaren…

Edited by lewislorenzo, 30 January 2024 - 23:44.

[jonpollak]

Zweifellos Jochen Rindt !!!

He's the best commentator too !!!

 

"What da hell were you thinking Jack?"

 

Jp

[eab]

garoidb, on 30 Jan 2024 - 16:08, said:

There's an assumption that Alonso was at full strength immediately in the new team if he is considered such a reliable yardstick. Lewis himself later lost a title to a team-mate immediately after winning two successive titles, with no team change involved. Was it his best season and a consistent yardstick? 

 

For the second point, has Lewis done anything equally impressive since? If so, why does this season get mentioned so much when he has had much longer partnerships and more successful seasons?

Perhaps such an assumption exists with others, but not with me though. However, a proven reigning double world champ doesn't turn into a chump when changing teams, especially such an adaptable one like Alonso. So if you as a rookie, also not at full potential, can keep close enough to the champ, I guess that does bode well for your future prospects.

Lewis losing a title to Rosberg told me something that I already knew at the time, namely that Nico under the right circumstances, could win a title VS Hamilton as he'd already shown IMO in seasons prior. It was a confirmation.

 

About your second question, he's performed within the bandwith one could expect after that first season.

And the third, again, I mentioned 07 because that one set the tone for HAM's future seasons, it was a clear sign of things (very likely) to come and of how to see things in his career to come, in perspective. I've never said that it was his only good season, or indeed his magnum opus.

 

I have to say, I didn't think my take was a particular controversial one, yet here I am, having to explain for the 3rd time or so, that if/when a driver performs very well within the same team as the reigning two time champ, who's 

hailed by many (or even unanimously) as an all-time great within his sport, fighting for the highest accolade of the sport all season long, it reflects rather well on said driver, who, is a rookie to boot.

So I on my turn, would like to know what your point is. Do you think that the performance of an all-time great, close to/in his prime, fighting for the most important title in his sport, can fall down below a lower limit such that performing near (enough) (t)his level can be rendered meaningless? Because that's what you're seemingly arguing(, may be contingent on switching teams and/or tyres/something else).

In which case, (practically) no valuation of any (non-) performance can be reasonably made. I thus far, refuse to take such an indifferent and rather cynical view on this subject.

[George Costanza]

Cliff, on 30 Jan 2024 - 14:34, said:

For now Michael, but Max has already done things never seen before and I feel he's only getting started. His current 3 or 4 season streak is the most scary consistent I've ever seen (since 1994). When all things are said and done I truly think he'll take that crown.

Tell Max to go to Ferrari and we'll see how good he really is... That's exactly what made Michael Schumacher very special. People thought he was crazy for leaving Benetton after 1995. Which is why Michael will be the last multiple world champion for Ferrari...

Same for Lewis for leaving McLaren in 2012, but they were very quick in 2013 at Mercedes.

Maybe Max will take Adrian with him to Ferrari someday but I don't think that'll ever happen.

Edited by George Costanza, 31 January 2024 - 02:20.

[CoolBreeze]

Although i voted, this kinda poll will never make sense. The sport develops all the time, making each era extremely difficult  to come to a conclusion.

There's just too much criteria in question. For example, in football, there's Pele vs Maradona vs George Best overall, and in modern times, we have Ronaldo vs Messi.

 

In recent times, some say Ronaldo is the GOAT because he won titles at every club he played at, yet Messi won the World Cup last year, and some say he's the best.

 

For me, it's a personal thing.