Hamilton will never!

[ArrowsFA1]

What a load of crap. :rolleyes:
Disqualify someone because he briefly overtook on the parade lap, and than give him a 2 race ban of top of that. people nowadays complain that Lewy got a 10 place grid penalty for running into someone in the pitlane, but a DQ and 2 race ban for a brief overtake on the parade lap is seen as just(well it was iat Silverstone, so I'm not surprized that the british Marshals decide to favor the local boy)! :laugh:
Than disqualify him for having worn underplate due to going over the kerbs, let's say it's acceptable.
A nice bit of revisionist history there ioan.

The rule was that you didn't overtake during the warm-up lap. It was as clear a rule break as you can get. You could argue that the rule was daft but that's not the point. It was the rule and MS broke it so was given a stop/go which was the standard penalty for such an offence.

Then, when you're shown the black flag it's not a polite "would sir consider returning to the pits for a chat", it's instant disqualification - "remove yourself from the race NOW!". MS and his team chose to ignore it.

As for the British marshalls favouring Hill, quite how they influenced the stewards who knows :rolleyes: Did they push the Benetton ahead of the Williams on the warm-up lap? :p

I have to say I have sympathy for MS at Belgium where that stupid wooden plank was his undoing, but again the rule was there so that teams did not get an advantage from running the car closer to the ground than the plank would allow. In this case it seems running over the kerb caused the plank to be worn down and so the penalty was issued.

[Tazio]

This thread is making me ill!

[ioan]

A nice bit of revisionist history there ioan.

The rule was that you didn't overtake during the warm-up lap. It was as clear a rule break as you can get. You could argue that the rule was daft but that's not the point. It was the rule and MS broke it so was given a stop/go which was the standard penalty for such an offence.

Then, when you're shown the black flag it's not a polite "would sir consider returning to the pits for a chat", it's instant disqualification - "remove yourself from the race NOW!". MS and his team chose to ignore it.

As for the British marshalls favouring Hill, quite how they influenced the stewards who knows :rolleyes: Did they push the Benetton ahead of the Williams on the warm-up lap? :p

I have to say I have sympathy for MS at Belgium where that stupid wooden plank was his undoing, but again the rule was there so that teams did not get an advantage from running the car closer to the ground than the plank would allow. In this case it seems running over the kerb caused the plank to be worn down and so the penalty was issued.

So he was disqualified because they chose to ignore the black flag for a long period ( I think they did take a stop and go penalty or something like that).
All is nice up to here, but a 2 race ban on top of that?!

There was the need for a closer championship fight, and it was obvious that MS was going to walk it in the underpowered Benetton, so they took advantage of what happened at Sileverstone and put him out of the game for 2 more races.

As for the eroded plank, everyone knew that it was not cheating but who cares, it was another chance to take away a win and close the title fight.

We all have sometimes the impression that one team or other is helped by the rulers, or that one team or another is punished more at certain moments, sometimes it is right sometimes it's a bit pushed to extreme. From my POV this isn't because the FIA loves or hates certain drivers, no way, it was always done to balance the championships, to keep the fight alive as much as possible, in order to have more viewers and get more money.

[MrJan]

This thread is making me ill!

I love it!! It's fantastic arguing with someone who refuses to change their mind.


A comparison can be made, simply because each driver have statistics against their contemporaries. In baseball a 300 hitter is a 300 hitter, 20 wins is 20 wins, the same is true in racing. If rules out the anomalies for dominant or DNF equipment, one can get a clear picture of the drivers real performance.

Not so. A mediocre baseball hitter against a rubbish pitcher can be a 300 hitter whilst a fantastic batter against fantastic pitchers will struggle.

For probably 3 of Schumacher's championships he had no competition to speak of yet as someone else pointed out Senna was racing against Prost (who you think is so brilliant), Mansell and Piquet. Schumacher never truly had to race against anyone who was any good which is why his statistics look so good. I still think that he was fantastic and could have challenged any driver on their best day but that is because of how he drove and his intelligence, not because some numbers told me so.

[ioan]

Schumacher never truly had to race against anyone who was any good which is why his statistics look so good. I still think that he was fantastic and could have challenged any driver on their best day but that is because of how he drove and his intelligence, not because some numbers told me so.

:laugh:

Or maybe he was that good that the others looked very very poor!
Depends on the POV, if you hate him you say he had a weak opposition, if you like him you say he was exceptional although the others were good.

Saying that MH, JV, JPM, KR, FA and many others were a weak opposition is stupid IMO.

[MrJan]

:laugh:

Or maybe he was that good that the others looked very very poor!
Depends on the POV, if you hate him you say he had a weak opposition, if you like him you say he was exceptional although the others were good.

Saying that MH, JV, JPM, KR, FA and many others were a weak opposition is stupid IMO.

MH and FA were very good, just not as good as Schumi. JV, IMO, was not. A perrenial underacheiver with the exception of one good season. He spent the last 5 years of his F1 career doing nothing and complaining about it. Kimi would be a threat to Michael now but I don't think so before he retired. JPM was a good driver but not, IMO, a champion. The move he pulled at Interlagos was fantastic because so many people had been treating Schumacher like a king. Sadly I don't think the Williams or Montoya had the pace.

My however was to say that perhaps it is unfair to compare Michael's numbers alongside Senna's. DP has alreaduy made his feelings clear on the strength of Prost and the mediocrity of Hakkinen yet does not feel that this can affect the statistics of Schumacher and Senna. Isn't it obvious that a driver against someone who is 'not top 20 of the modern era' will have better statistics than one who is apparently top 5?

DP has wound himself up in more knots than me (I'm usually pretty good at saying one thing and then saying something to contradict it) and has pretty much rendered the argument obsolete.

My POV on Schumacher is somewhere in the middle. I won't blindly say that he was the greatest ever, nor did I particularly like him. However I don't think I could call myself a motorsport fan if I did not at least appreciate that he was a very clever and quick driver.
























Oh and Lewis Hamilton, future WDC ;)

[jens]

Yeah! Finally Fangio and the 50's have been briefly mentioned in the discussion of history. I've been waiting for that. But what about other great drivers, who have not been involved in this topic? Don't try to insult them by not mentiong them at all while discussing others. :p :

Usually a discussion about the greatest drivers of all times brings sooner or later Gilles into the debate too. I'm amazed you have skipped him. 'Stats' and 'no-stats' disputers would have a lot of material here for an extra debate. :D

[MrJan]

I was going to mention that my old man rates Gilles Villeneuve as the best ever driver :D

[DezinerPaul]

But then again, so was Clark, Senna, Stewart and Fangio ;)
\

Senna was not fast, in race trim and Stewart (is there by default)

[DezinerPaul]

There is no question that Fangio is the benchmark, and that will never change.


There is little doubt that some of Fangio's stats are brilliant. Only real problem, is the small amount of races, clearly they did not race as often, he was indeed brilliant every year he had, except for Ascari's dream run.
Once again his problem, lack of seat time, brilliant of course, he still has two title less than Michael, who's stats are over a staggering 250 races.

[Dave B]

Characteristically wise words from Autosport's Mark Hughes on the ITV-F1 website:

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=Mark_Hughes&id=43176

[SGWilko]

\

Senna was not fast

Tsk. I know milkfloats quicker than that Brazilian!!! :laugh: at, not with.

[DezinerPaul]

I love it!! It's fantastic arguing with someone who refuses to change their mind.



Not so. A mediocre baseball hitter against a rubbish pitcher can be a 300 hitter whilst a fantastic batter against fantastic pitchers will struggle.

For probably 3 of Schumacher's championships he had no competition to speak of yet as someone else pointed out Senna was racing against Prost (who you think is so brilliant), Mansell and Piquet. Schumacher never truly had to race against anyone who was any good which is why his statistics look so good. I still think that he was fantastic and could have challenged any driver on their best day but that is because of how he drove and his intelligence, not because some numbers told me so.



You blew your argument, with your baseball illustration. It is quite clear that you know nothing about the sport, you would have been better using another illustration.
As for your points about Michael, you are waaaay off and others have raised the issue

[MrJan]

Tsk. I know milkfloats quicker than that Brazilian!!! :laugh: at, not with.

Yeah they were driven by Michael Schumacher :laugh: Statistics show that Schumi deliver 4.556 pints more every hour compared to Senna.

[SGWilko]

Statistics show that Schumi deliver 4.556 pints more every hour compared to Senna.

77.777777777787% of all statistics are made up! :D

[MrJan]

You blew your argument, with your baseball illustration. It is quite clear that you know nothing about the sport, you would have been better using another illustration.

True. As with most English people I couldn't care about it. Don't see how my inability to make a point about a boring sport that I don't watch should affect my argument.



As for your points about Michael, you are waaaay off and others have raised the issue

And I explained to the others my reasoning which I feel makes sense. You were only too happy to say that Mika wasn't very good, yet he still beat Michael to 2 championships.

Or was it this bit that you thought was wrong?


I still think that he was fantastic and could have challenged any driver on their best day but that is because of how he drove and his intelligence, not because some numbers told me so.

[DezinerPaul]

Firstly, and obviously, MS is up there with the greats and he certainly was a master of his craft.

Regarding the stats consider this; when Fangio won his first title in 1951 there were 8 races that counted towards the championship, one of them being the Indy 500. When Schumacher won his first title in 1994 there were twice that number. Fangio's career spanned nine seasons, Schumacher's spanned 16.

You ask how MS achieved such amazing stats - that is one of the reasons. Simply he had many more opportunities to do so.

Your argument does not make sense, less races would mean it was easier to win the title. Back in Fangios time, team orders (as in Indy were the norm)
One of Fangios title was a gift, when his team mate, was stopped during the race to give his car to Fangio. Fangio, never put one thing into F1, he
went from one team to the other, because they had a faster car, 6 teams in 7 seasons.
He was not known for his fighting spirit, if his car was not the fastest he simply left the team

[jens]

-- less races would mean it was easier to win the title. --


Hmm, when I'm trying to use my logic, then it actually seems reversed. Why do I think so? With less races the point gaps between drivers will be smaller by the end of the season. Hence every failure is more costly and every single race has more importance in the outcome of the championship.

For example if one retires from the opening Grand Prix of the season, then I'd imagine he may have different feelings depending on whether there are 15 races ("oh, a lot of opportunities left, I'll sooner or later catch the leader") still left... or only 7 ("I must make sure I won't retire from the next race, because then my chances would be fairly limited"). Or at least that's how I would react in those situations.

[DezinerPaul]

[quote="Mr Jan Yeo"]True. As with most English people I couldn't care about it. Don't see how my inability to make a point about a boring sport that I don't watch should affect my argument.

The whole point about baseball, was that a career .300 hitter is a very special player to have that average.




And I explained to the others my reasoning which I feel makes sense. You were only too happy to say that Mika wasn't very good, yet he still beat Michael to 2 championships.

You have to look at all of Mikas career, to assess his level of talent

[Dave B]

You have to look at all of Mikas career, to assess his level of talent
Including the years he was saddled with Judd or Peugeot engines?

[MrJan]

If you look at more than Mika's 2 championship winning years then doesn't his career seem less impressive? Are you saying that Michael got beaten twice by someone who really wasn't that good?

And I still don't see how a .300 average trashes my argument.

[Tazio]

You blew your argument, with your baseball illustration. It is quite clear that you know nothing about the sport, you would have been better using another illustration.
As for your points about Michael, you are waaaay off and others have raised the issue On the contrary, speaking from a position of experience, having played competitive Hardball until I was 43 (which included a substantial amount of batting against big league pitching). I think Mr. Jan Yeo's Baseball analogy is quite succinct. Your dismissal of it speaks volumes about your agenda!
I call Bu!!$hI+

[DezinerPaul]

If you look at more than Mika's 2 championship winning years then doesn't his career seem less impressive? Are you saying that Michael got beaten twice by someone who really wasn't that good?

And I still don't see how a .300 average trashes my argument.


Michael got beat by one of the best cars in history!

[Dave B]

Michael got beat by one of the best cars in history!
Which by your logic makes his 2002 Championship practically worthless.

[ioan]

Yeah! Finally Fangio and the 50's have been briefly mentioned in the discussion of history. I've been waiting for that. But what about other great drivers, who have not been involved in this topic? Don't try to insult them by not mentiong them at all while discussing others. :p :

IMO discussing any of the greats (including the mentioned JMF, MS, AP and AS) in a thread about Lewy is an insult to them. :p :

[Tazio]

[B]The whole point about baseball, was that a career .300 hitter is a very special player to have that average.
There was no reference to any career 300 hitter. Only relative statistics (that you seem to think you have a monopoly on) batting average Vs different pitchers. Those stats are available. A season average is exactly that, taken over the course of the whole season. A decent player may struggle mightily against chuckers that are really nasty, while lighting up lesser pitchers like a Christmas tree on the Fourth of July! I've been accused of wasted space on this forum! :p : Dude, your in a whole 'nother league!

[DezinerPaul]

On the contrary, speaking from a position of experience, having played competitive Hardball until I was 43 (which included a substantial amount of batting against big league pitching). I think Mr. Jan Yeo's Baseball analogy is quite succinct. Your dismissal of it speaks volumes about your agenda!
I call Bu!!$hI+

For a batsman to have a .300 lifetime BA, means that he has hit consistently, against all of the pitchers he faced. .300 hitters are few and far between! His analogy was way off, as are you!

[MrJan]

For a batsman to have a .300 lifetime BA, means that he has hit consistently, against all of the pitchers he faced. .300 hitters are few and far between! His analogy was way off, as are you!

Not true. But if one batter faces more poor pitchers in a career than another then it makes sense that his average will be higher than others. Portsmouth won this years FA Cup against all odds because many other decent teams had knocked each other out. Cardiff reached the final yet are not even in the top 20 teams in the country.

And it wasn't my analogy, it was yours which I attempted to interpret. In essence I agree with you that Schumacher was a fantastic driver but I do not think that you can draw effective comparisons between his career and anyone elses from a different era.

[MrJan]

Oh and Lewis Hamilton WILL win a Championship.

[Tazio]

For a batsman to have a .300 lifetime BA, means that he has hit consistently, against all of the pitchers he faced. .300 hitters are few and far between! His analogy was way off, as are you! I agree. But Mr. J.Y. didn't mention career or even a complete seasons batting average. He said:
"Not so. A mediocre baseball hitter against a rubbish pitcher can be a 300 hitter whilst a fantastic batter against fantastic pitchers will struggle."
Unless you’re saying that "The Bigs" has only one or the other, (fantastic or rubbish) this statement is logical, and specific to each. It's not a perfect analogy. I say it is definitely not one that should be ridiculed. It makes sense, and you know it. Your obstinance is remarkable!

[Tazio]

Not true. But if one batter faces more poor pitchers in a career than another then it makes sense that his average will be higher than others.
Damn! you just blew the arguement. The quality of pitching at the big league level is never bad enough for a player (meeting the minimum amount of at bats to be classified) to hit 300 without being exceptional!
C'est la vie

[MrJan]

Damn! you just blew the arguement. The quality of pitching at the big league level is never bad enough for a player (meeting the minimum amount of at bats to be classified) to hit 300 without being exceptional!
C'est la vie

I blew the baseball argument but my point remains. In motorsport if a driver is racing against poor opposition then they are more likely to win, creating better statistics. In the scheme of things most people would say that Alain Prost is better than anyone Schumacher was challenged by in his WDC winning seasons. Therefore you cannot compare Schumacher and Senna directly using only statistics because it would have been easier for him to reach those numbers without having opposition equal to that which Senna experienced.

But all of this is a long way from the original post which makes an unfounded claim about a blatently talented driver who has over a decade to mature and win a championship. A hotheaded young driver can be tamed (see Felipe Massa for an example) but it takes natural talent to be truly fast in a car and I believe that Hamilton has that (something that is proved by his racing history).

[Tazio]

I blew the baseball argument but my point remains. In motorsport if a driver is racing against poor opposition then they are more likely to win, creating better statistics. In the scheme of things most people would say that Alain Prost is better than anyone Schumacher was challenged by in his WDC winning seasons. Therefore you cannot compare Schumacher and Senna directly using only statistics because it would have been easier for him to reach those numbers without having opposition equal to that which Senna experienced.

But all of this is a long way from the original post which makes an unfounded claim about a blatently talented driver who has over a decade to mature and win a championship. A hotheaded young driver can be tamed (see Felipe Massa for an example) but it takes natural talent to be truly fast in a car and I believe that Hamilton has that (something that is proved by his racing history).Quite right! on all counts including that this thread got way off topic. Even I recognize that LH is capable of wining a WDC and stated so about 8,000 post's ago.
I was just trying to help win the insignificant part of the arguement also :p :

[Jag_Warrior]

Quite right! on all counts including that this thread got way off topic.

This thread was based on a weak and silly topic to begin with. What kind of goof would pretend that he can see into the future of a championship caliber driver?

When I saw the thread title, "Hamilton will never!", I figured we'd been blessed with another of these drive-by goofballs that we get every few months. They'll rack up 5 or 10 moronic posts a day for 30 days or so and then, more often than not, disappear forever.

Counting down! :p

[MrJan]

This thread was based on a weak and silly topic to begin with. What kind of goof would pretend that he can see into the future of a championship caliber driver?

When I saw the thread title, "Hamilton will never!", I figured we'd been blessed with another of these drive-by goofballs that we get every few months. They'll rack up 5 or 10 moronic posts a day for 30 days or so and then, more often than not, disappear forever.

Counting down! :p

Yup, the whole reason I never read the F1 forum is because I end up in arguments like this one that spiral out of control from one stupid statement to another.

Next time I'm bored I'll just put the kettle on and have a cup of tea instead :D

[Firstgear]

They'll rack up 5 or 10 moronic posts a day for 30 days or so and then, more often than not, disappear forever.

30 days - is that how long GW was banned for?

Hey DP, what's your opinion of A. Davidson?

[ShiftingGears]

If I compared the stats over their whole career there would not be a controlled variable, because their cars are different. So it would not be an accurate comparison. So I used a season where they drove the same car in the same team. That way, we can see whether there is a trend of the winning driver setting the fastest lap of the race.

There was not.

I understand that it maybe a little hard for you to grasp!

I destroyed your argument that Prost was faster in race trim, so stop saying that Senna wasn't as fast as Prost in the race, because he didn't set the fastest lap, go on. Flabbergast me with facts rather than baffle me with bulls*^&.

[markabilly]

Wrong wrong wrong, as lewie "can't break me" hamilton hisself has made abundantly clear

these series of quotes from just thelast few weeks beginning in Canada, great quotes from "i am kooler than kimi.....", so just as wilco said, nutting but quotes :D

Such as:

""That’s what they do: they build you up and then they break you down, but they can’t break me.

"There’s a lot of crap coming out in the papers. I’m here to race and I don’t want all this stuff. But I’m very strong mentally and my belief in my own ability is stronger than ever and there’s nothing that can break me....."

"I feel cool. It's all good. Racing is racing. I'm still here, there's nothing you can do to get me out of it,"


"I kept pushing. There's nothing you can do that can distract me. You can keep on giving me penalties and whatever you want to do and I'll keep battling and try and come back with a result."



"This will make no difference," he said, speaking to British newspapers.

"It hasn't knocked me confidence-wise. I'm not gutted or disappointed.

"We are baffled how it came to that in the space of 30 seconds.

"I had two guys in front of me and suddenly they have stopped as I have looked at the red light. But you can't win them all. This makes me stronger.

"Going forward, the mood is strong. The fact is, we destroyed everyone [on pace].

"With the car we have right now, there is no stopping us. It is not going to take me a day to recover or anything. I am really looking forward to Magny-Cours."

""At the end of the day if there is a problem, it is my job to find a solution and get around it as quick as possible. So I am not surprised that I have that big a gap there, because I can see other people would probably not have found it. So that is why I am on pole."
"It is one of my skills. I am able to adjust to whatever conditions I have, and that is probably why I am so strong in the wet. I feel at home, I feel comfortable. And it wasn't tough, to be honest."
Just thought I would add the latest:
“I haven't had any lack of concentration,” he told The Associated Press. “If anything, I've been more in-form in the last two races than I ever have before."



methinks i shall :beer: to that....i wonder when the press says thathe says "cool" he really means "Kool"

[DezinerPaul]

This thread was based on a weak and silly topic to begin with. What kind of goof would pretend that he can see into the future of a championship caliber driver?

When I saw the thread title, "Hamilton will never!", I figured we'd been blessed with another of these drive-by goofballs that we get every few months. They'll rack up 5 or 10 moronic posts a day for 30 days or so and then, more often than not, disappear forever.

Counting down! :p
FYI, you have no idea, who I am or what is my posting history at any of the other sites. My suggestion to you, stop counting, you are wasting your time.

[DezinerPaul]

30 days - is that how long GW was banned for?

Hey DP, what's your opinion of A. Davidson?

AD is another journeyman (even though he is only 31, I think) who may have done well a few years ago, however time has now passed him by.

[DezinerPaul]

I destroyed your argument that Prost was faster in race trim, so stop saying that Senna wasn't as fast as Prost in the race, because he didn't set the fastest lap, go on. Flabbergast me with facts rather than baffle me with bulls*^&.


The only thing you destroyed, was my hope that communication with you was possible. It seems that you are on a whole different level, don't strain your neck, looking up!

[DezinerPaul]

Yup, the whole reason I never read the F1 forum is because I end up in arguments like this one that spiral out of control from one stupid statement to another.

Next time I'm bored I'll just put the kettle on and have a cup of tea instead :D

You mean when people do not agree with your views, such as the car is not as importnat as the driver, or who is the best of all time, Michael or Senna.
Do you want me to continue? Look this is a forum, if you have a view, be prepared to defend it, because there will be a lot of people who do not agree with you. At the end of the day though, that is the fun part, it would be boring, if we all agreed.

[markabilly]

FYI, you have no idea, who I am or what is my posting history at any of the other sites. My suggestion to you, stop counting, you are wasting your time.


My guess is that you have been here before, then banned and have now returned under a new ID, trying to demonstrate that BS by any other name, would still stink just as sweet...... :eek: bingo... :eek: .

suggest you have a nice cold glass of the good rev jimmy Brown kool aid, :beer: and you will be muttering even louder " There's nothing you can do that can distract me. You can keep on giving me penalties and whatever you want to do and I'll keep battling and try and come back with a result."


and then you will just
:grenade:


:rolleyes:

[ShiftingGears]

The only thing you destroyed, was my hope that communication with you was possible. It seems that you are on a whole different level, don't strain your neck, looking up!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Oh dear.

I'm leaving this thread before I lose more brain cells describing the obvious.

[MrJan]

You mean when people do not agree with your views, such as the car is not as importnat as the driver, or who is the best of all time, Michael or Senna.
Do you want me to continue? Look this is a forum, if you have a view, be prepared to defend it, because there will be a lot of people who do not agree with you. At the end of the day though, that is the fun part, it would be boring, if we all agreed.

I never said that the car is not as important as the driver, merely that one cannot operate without the other and that it is not 'all car'. A car cannot drive itself, nor will a poor driver be particularly quick in a brilliant car, it takes a combination of the two.

Also not true that it would be boring if we all agreed. Rather than all the bitching and fighting in the F1 section I'd far rather read the threads where people are mostly friendly, something that just won't happen if you read about F1.

[ArrowsFA1]

Your argument does not make sense, less races would mean it was easier to win the title.
Oh right, so if it was so much easier then how is it that no-one else won a title between 1954-57?

Regardless of that my point was Fangio started 51 GP's, Schumacher 248. That's very nearly 5 times more opportunities that MS had to win.

Once again his problem, lack of seat time, brilliant of course, he still has two title less than Michael, who's stats are over a staggering 250 races.
Which is, after all these posts, what it comes down to for you. 7 v 5. That's it. Two numbers, one bigger than the other.

Ho hum :dozey:

[DezinerPaul]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Oh dear.

I'm leaving this thread before I lose more brain cells describing the obvious.

Guess I left myself open far that!

[DezinerPaul]

Oh right, so if it was so much easier then how is it that no-one else won a title between 1954-57?

Regardless of that my point was Fangio started 51 GP's, Schumacher 248. That's very nearly 5 times more opportunities that MS had to win.

Which is, after all these posts, what it comes down to for you. 7 v 5. That's it. Two numbers, one bigger than the other.

Ho hum :dozey:


It is called winning, not "who was dead, but would have won if they were alive"

[MrJan]

It is called winning, not "who was dead, but would have won if they were alive"

I bet you're one of those people that can't appreciate when someone loses well. For instance if my football team plays well but is ultimately outplayed by the other team then I accept that we were beaten and can move on to the next game.

I suppose I must be weak for believing that it is not always about winning but sometimes the way in which you play.

Of course winning is much easier if you are alive but it can lead to some skewed statistics if you present them alongside someone who died before they had a chance to have a full career.

I think that for the majority of posters on here it's not all about who wins the most, that's why there are Alonso, Webber, Massa, Button and Trulli fans. These are the people that are passionate about the sport, people that follow drivers because they know in their heart that they are good :)


Oh and Schumacher, Senna, Prost and Fangio aren't racing in this years championship. It's Kubica, Raikkonen, Massa and Hamilton, which one do you tip? (make sure to consider the facts and numbers before you pick one of the Ferrari drivers ;) :p : )

[ShiftingGears]

It is called winning, not "who was dead, but would have won if they were alive"

You'll find that noone will take your arguments seriously if you take statistics at face value without ever questioning why or how these results were reached.

[ioan]

Everyone against one forumer with a different opinion! :rolleyes:
I suppose you all feel stronger in a nice group of biased people not able to even try what the others position is. :p :

This is the best example to describe what our forum is all about: "mine is better than yours, no matter what the facts are"! :\
Very few people know how to have a civilized discussion around here, the rest are just slamming others opinions using their own sentiments as arguments.

[ShiftingGears]

Everyone against one forumer with a different opinion! :rolleyes:

But not because its different. Because it's poorly justified. We'd do the same for you :p :

[SGWilko]

Everyone against one forumer with a different opinion! :rolleyes:
I suppose you all feel stronger in a nice group of biased people not able to even try what the others position is. :p :

This is the best example to describe what our forum is all about: "mine is better than yours, no matter what the facts are"! :\
Very few people know how to have a civilized discussion around here, the rest are just slamming others opinions using their own sentiments as arguments.

With the greatest of respect - and no offense intended - I put it to you that you sir, are now talking cohones!

We have all reasoned our aguments to this particular forummer, but patience only stretches so far when flaming is involved me old mucca! ;)

[DezinerPaul]

I think that for the majority of posters on here it's not all about who wins the most, that's why there are Alonso, Webber, Massa, Button and Trulli fans. These are the people that are passionate about the sport, people that follow drivers because they know in their heart that they are good :)


Oh and Schumacher, Senna, Prost and Fangio aren't racing in this years championship. It's Kubica, Raikkonen, Massa and Hamilton, which one do you tip? (make sure to consider the facts and numbers before you pick one of the Ferrari drivers ;) :p : )[/quote]


Your problem, is that you assume to many things. The truth is that I am as passionate about GP, as anybody on this site. Have followed GP for a very long time and I suspect know as much as most on this site.

My favorite driver at the present is Massa, and has been since he entered F1, with of course the exception of Michael, who I think is a mile better, than any other driver of the modern era.Am a huge fan of Clark who I feel is many times better than Senna. My ultimate race would be Michael and Clark, going at it.

Do not like Hamilton, he runs off at the mouth, instead of letting his driving do the talking, in my opinion this is a sign of emotional and mental weakness. It is not a sign of immaturity, rather his makeup as a person, this I feel will see him fold like a deck of cards when real pressure is applied.

[DezinerPaul]

But not because its different. Because it's poorly justified. We'd do the same for you :p :

What a crock of crack. Who died and made you ruler of what is good or poor judgement, regarding GP!

[DezinerPaul]

It is interesting that Lewis fans seem to also be Senna fans and anti Michael Schumacher. Guess once a person of poor taste, always an exhibitor of poor taste.

[ArrowsFA1]

It is called winning, not "who was dead, but would have won if they were alive"
How does that have anything to do with my point that Fangio started 51 GP's, Schumacher 248, that being very nearly 5 times more opportunities that MS had to win?

[ShiftingGears]

What a crock of crack. Who died and made you ruler of what is good or poor judgement, regarding GP!

Your inability to do anything except accept statistics at face value without ever thinking about why they happened and your frequent double standards in logic make it pretty obvious to me that it is poorly judged. I think more than a few people will agree with me here.

[ArrowsFA1]

Do not like Hamilton, he runs off at the mouth, instead of letting his driving do the talking, in my opinion this is a sign of emotional and mental weakness. It is not a sign of immaturity, rather his makeup as a person, this I feel will see him fold like a deck of cards when real pressure is applied.
Certainly a opinion and one which will be seen to be right, or not, as time goes on.

I'd say to some extent that Hamilton is a "victim" of the intense spotlight the media puts on people who are made to appear more as celebrities than sports people. It's something that drivers of previous eras didn't have to put up with to anything like the same extent, but it's something he will have to learn to deal with as best he can.

However, you say "that he runs off at the mouth, instead of letting his driving do the talking" but I'd disagree. He very much lets the driving do the talking when he's in the car, and has produced superb performances for one so inexperienced in F1 terms.

[MrJan]

It is interesting that Lewis fans seem to also be Senna fans and anti Michael Schumacher. Guess once a person of poor taste, always an exhibitor of poor taste.

:arrows: You don't seem to listen when I say that I rate Schumacher as a driver (he performed some amazing races and is one of the best drivers to have ever lived but you cannot deny that several of his Championships were easy because of car dominance/poor opposition). The reason that Lewis fans are also Senna fans is that both are similar, passionate drivers with a genuine talent whereas Schumacher is just a driver with an amazing talent. Personally I like the way that LH drives the car, a balls out approach which I admire.

As I've already said I have to disagree with you about Hamilton as I DO think that it is immaturity. We all know that young people are quite often arrogant and too firery for there own good but will calm down in the future. I go back once again to that fantastic GP2 race at Turkey where Lewis managed pressure very well. Likewise his amazing run of podiums last season, surely the pressure of your first GP when you are surrounded by so much attention is going to be distracting yet he performed admirably.


Everyone against one forumer with a different opinion! :rolleyes:
I suppose you all feel stronger in a nice group of biased people not able to even try what the others position is. :p :

This is the best example to describe what our forum is all about: "mine is better than yours, no matter what the facts are"! :\
Very few people know how to have a civilized discussion around here, the rest are just slamming others opinions using their own sentiments as arguments.

Where are the facts which show the future of Lewis Hamilton?

I am not slamming anyone's opinion, merely questioning what I consider to be strange viewpoints, in particular a crystal ball prediction that appears to be largely unfounded with the exception of Lewis Hamilton being a bit too quick to fly off the handle. To say that an extraordinarily quick driver (surely we can all concede that, few people can step into a F1 car quite like Lewis did) will not win a championship is shortsighted.

[555-04Q2]

Consider how MS stats were amassed.....

Building a 'dream team' to suit his needs. Not allowing or having a competetive teammate - look what happened when Jos and Herbert matched his pace in the Benetton.

Look at the quality of the competition (lest we forget the sportmanship and comradeship) in the days of Fangio, Clark and Moss......

Senna had Piquet, Mansell & Prost to beat.....

It focuses the attention when you dig a little deeper.

I am not doubting Mike's ability, just how the stats were achieved.

Doesnt matter how the stats were amassed. Fact remains, he got them and no one else is even close ;)

[ArrowsFA1]

Doesnt matter how the stats were amassed.
I disagree

Fact remains, he got them and no one else is even close ;)
I agree.

:D :s mokin:

[555-04Q2]

Number of starts maybe?

Sorry, that's a silly statement on a few levels.

Let's use our beloved statistics for this one. ;)

Fangio started 52 races.
Schumacher started 250.


Driver Win Percentage Pole Percentage Fastest Lap %
Fangio 46.1 55.8 44.2
Schumacher 36.4 27.2 28.4

There, Schumacher's behind Fangio in every field.

I'll be damned if anyone says Fangio wasn't as good as Schumacher based on 'statistics'.

:)

You're damned then :p :

I'm not interested in percentages (they are for accountants), but results.

The number of races also shows that MS had to be consistent for a far greater period than the great Fangio had to be. I'll give Fangio the credit that he wasn't a youngster though when he drove, which was impressive :up:

Now back to the original topic of the thread, yes :)

[555-04Q2]

I disagree

I agree.

:D :s mokin:

At least we agree to disagree. Agree :D

[DezinerPaul]

Your inability to do anything except accept statistics at face value without ever thinking about why they happened and your frequent double standards in logic make it pretty obvious to me that it is poorly judged. I think more than a few people will agree with me here.


Well if they are standing behind you with support, there is very little for to worry about. Think it's time to give your organ grinder a nudge.

[Dave B]

Think it's time to give the organ grinder a nudge.
Mate, what you get up to in the privacy of your own bedroom is entirely your business. :dozey:

[DezinerPaul]

Certainly a opinion and one which will be seen to be right, or not, as time goes on.

I'd say to some extent that Hamilton is a "victim" of the intense spotlight the media puts on people who are made to appear more as celebrities than sports people. It's something that drivers of previous eras didn't have to put up with to anything like the same extent, but it's something he will have to learn to deal with as best he can.

However, you say "that he runs off at the mouth, instead of letting his driving do the talking" but I'd disagree. He very much lets the driving do the talking when he's in the car, and has produced superb performances for one so inexperienced in F1 terms.


The media spotlight is a tough thing to handle, the great ones do and they do it from the start, some are attracted to and act like fools, Hunt was a prime example, some run away like Damon.
Hamilton is another Hunt in the making. There are a number of young guys that are on the verge of making F1, one of those maybe the next great thing, it sure is not anybody on the grid at the moment, who is showing any signs of brilliance. The "great" Alonso is living proof what a great car can do for a so so driver, Kimi is on the other hand is clearly somebody who will not live up to expectations.

[MrJan]

Mate, what you get up to in the privacy of your own bedroom is entirely your business. :dozey:

:laugh:

It's when he starts nudging the organ grinder in the street that will cause concern.

[MrJan]

There are a number of young guys that are on the verge of making F1, one of those maybe the next great thing, it sure is not anybody on the grid at the moment, who is showing any signs of brilliance.

Must................resist...............urge..... .......to bite.......

[DezinerPaul]

Mate, what you get up to in the privacy of your own bedroom is entirely your business. :dozey:
I was referring to the monkey called squirrel.

[ShiftingGears]

I was referring to the monkey called squirrel.

Who was it that couldn't justify his opinion of fastest laps = fastest driver when given clearly contradictory evidence?


That's right, you.

But please, carry on with the insults. :D

[DezinerPaul]

Who was it that couldn't justify his opinion of fastest laps = fastest driver when given clearly contradictory evidence?


That's right, you.

But please, carry on with the insults. :D


Let me explain once again, just for you. For statistics to have ANY validity, they need to be used in their entirety, there is that simple enough for you?

[ShiftingGears]

Let me explain once again, just for you. For statistics to have ANY validity, they need to be used in their entirety, there is that simple enough for you?

Your explanation is simple but it is wrong.


To be valid there must be as many constants as possible, ideally over the largest time possible. That is why I used the McLaren teammates example. Because there are two teammates, in identical cars, in the same team. That means, we can see from their results whether the fastest lap is directly related to being fastest in the race.


If I want to try to figure out the link between smoking and cancer, I'd want to make the environmental factors as similar as possible, eg pollution levels, etc etc in my sample group of people.

If I have a sample size from the same area, with similar lifestyles, one group of smokers and one group of non-smokers, my results would be more VALID because there is an absolute minimum amount of factors influencing the result of cancer.

If I do the same survey, except have my non-smokers residing in Chernobyl, and my smokers residing in the pristine New Zealand, then my results are not going to be valid, because there are many more factors affecting my result than what I'm measuring.


Do I make myself clear, monkeyboy?

[janneppi]

good show all around.