Caesar. wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 07, 2020 1:46 pm
NathanOlder wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:36 pm
Caesar. wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:14 am
The thing that makes me want to shy away from placing Hamilton ahead of Schumacher is that I feel Lewis was beatable, and that there is larger gap between his best and worst seasons. Michael from mid 1993 to 2002 was consistently untouchable, while Lewis had off seasons in 2011 and 2013, while also losing the championship in the quickest car.
Schumacher was very beatable in 2010-2012. Lewis hasn't been that bad at all. You have to count the whole career in F1, not just pick and choose. In my opinion, Lewis can't be the GOAT until he retires for good as a driver in F1. You have to be judged on his whole career. Schumacher damaged his greatness by coming back. It was his call, he was probably warned against it. Coming back usually damages your legacy.
Tbh, i don't really consider Michael's second career, maybe that's my bias kicking in, and yes, he was beatable. And yes, these goat debates are all relative because we all have different frameworks as what constitutes as the goat.
It's a stupid argument, the GOAT one. Schumacher, as any competitor before or after him, was as good as he needed to be. No point in comparing him to different drivers of different eras. Hamilton is as good as he needs to be in his generation.
I also think that perception is very flawed, because how good one is or is perceived, depends on his relative competition. Hamilton's achievements can only be weighed against his directest competitors. That being Alonso, Kovaleinen, Button, Rosberg and Bottas. While many might argue Bottas isn't the fiercest competitor, there's really no argument that Hamilton within his career as faced very tough competition inside his very own team in Button, Rosberg and Alonso and officially no number 1 contract or benefits.
Schumacher, as great as his records may be, well, I don't really think he had much competition inside his own team nor did he race for a team that regards equality within the team very high. In fact, Michaels period of dominance is very much the defacto benchmark of how a team could have been built around a driver and the trio of Brawn, Todt and Michael. Ferrari, unfortunately for every driver that has driven for them, has shown their willingness to sabotage the 2nd driver for their first far too many times.
Michaels "dominance" that you mention simply shows his performance in his vacuum that the team built for him. Sure, from the competitors that raced him during that time, he was by far the most consistent, in also the most stable environment. I think it's why many still regard the likes of Senna or others to be "greater", except for the numbers.
Then there is also the point that F1 drivers have become way more competitive in recent years than it ever has been. To be frank; when Michael came back after retirement, I don't believe for a second it was "age" playing its part. He was just racing cars of a different era (with different characteristics and very different tires) in a way more competitive field and no longer in a car and team (with unlimited testing) built around his sole needs. Times have changed. To be fair, I don't think he performed bad, certainly his race craft was a sight to behold (not being sarcastic), but him losing out to Rosberg isn't a detriment to his own ability but more complement to Rosbergs. Rosberg was fast
He beat Hamilton multiple times in qualifying and across an entire season too in numbers (to some degree, Hamilton had a few issues with brakes etc), but to come close to someone who is widely regarded as one of the very best qualifiers is nothing short of astonishing IMO