I heard that Lewis has never ever been beaten by a teammate, can anyone confirm if this is true? Is it only in F1 or throughout his whole career including previous series Thinking about it, surely that would be almost unique in the history of motorsport? From what I can see Fangio was never beaten by a teammate but in those days the number 1 driver couldn't be beaten because had he crashed his car, he could just grab the number 2's car instead In this modern era where teammates are not told to hand cars over or to give up places etc it must be even harder to always beat your teammates over a season Senna and Prost have both been beaten by each other as teammates, although Senna was actually outpointed both times, and we still regard him as the best Surely Lewis is special in this respect, unless his teammates were always weak number 2 drivers? Obviously he has to prove himself over ten years or more but he already is looking like he could be one if the greatest ever, if you compare his first 4 years Thoughts?
Lol I think you'll find Prost was a far tougher driver to beat than Button... And I think you'll find that Fangio was beaten to a WDC by Peter Collins who just gave his car up for Fangio out of sportsmanship. Lets also be clear, number 1 drivers in the 50's, didn't just dust themselves off and get in the next car that's in the team, they had to make sure they were alive first... Lewis wouldn't last 1 race at full pelt in those days the way he drives.
No he isn't. There are still too many flaws in his ability for him to be regarded as the best driver on the grid, let alone one of the greatest. No current F1 driver deserves to be mentioned with the legends like Clark, Senna and Fangio. And as for could be one of the greatest, I dont think its right to talk about potential until we see some proper results on the track.
So far though he is unbeaten in the same car in all series As far as I know, this I'd pretty unique Just been informed that not even Fangio has done this Ofcourse Lewis is not the best ever yet we can only judge this at the end of his career, but so far his credentials are impeccable He crashes a lot? So? not as much as Senna so far, and few would argue that Senna isn't the best ever Senna was beaten by a slower teammate on points over a season twice Too early to say Lewis is as good, but them stats are impressive Unbeaten by anyone in any series in same car including 2 current WC teammates
Just pointing out something that amazed me Do you know of anyone else unbeaten by a teammate every year in all series?
Cookin, as much as I enjoy watching Hamilton race, it's not a given he will become a multiple WDC.There are numerous drivers who may of deserved more acclaim, deserved multiple WDC's but didn't manage it. If he ends his career with the one WDC, people arn't going to elevate him to "great" status by mentioning the fact he's never lost to his teammate lol.
He is not yet the best ever, there are others with more titles No one is suggesting that he be judged the best after a few years So far though, he does compare extremely well with the greats at this stage of their careers Do you think an indicator of future possible greatness is to remain unbeaten by any teammate? I think it is
dunno how many others have tbh, what about Vettel and Kobayashi, have they been beaten by team-mates?
Hmm… an interesting thread I thought I'd never see… Of course, it's always impossible to do a like for like comparison of different eras, but of all the drivers of the last three decades (at least), no-one has come closer to a Clark/Fangio, than Hamilton, in my opinion. Yes, as far as I am aware, it is true that Hamilton has never been beaten by a team mate in any class of racing - and as far as I am aware, this is not the case for any other driver on the current grid, and may well extend back all the way to the 60s. (I don't know for sure: I'm not really that interested in statistics). One thing I am sure of: Hamilton has more natural talent than anyone since Clark. And yes; that includes Prost, Senna, G. Villenueve and everyone in-between! (This is not a wind-up: it is my genuine opinion, having been in the trade since the 70s)
Cosicave I completely agree with you So far Hamilton's record and stats back up what we can see ourselves in China for example Anyone watching him race for the first time would not be surprised to be told that he alone as far as I know is unbeaten by any teammate It's a privilege to watch him race
Fangio should of won the 1950's WDC, he had 3 retirements which were not his fault but the car, every other race he won by a country mile. Also these are fangio's teammates for that year: Giuseppe Farina Luigi ***ioli Reg Parnell Gianbattista Guidotti Consalvo Sanesi Piero Taruffi A few more drivers to beat than Jenson. And lets also be clear again, the WDC didn't mean anything as much as winning your home GP. That era: Home GP>a different GP>World title. Lets also look at the competiton for Lewis with the drivers he was against: Formula Renault 2000:Ernesto viso----Where is he now? Formula 3 euro serios:Charles Zwolsman----Where is he now? Formula3 euro seriesx2:Adrian Sutil---F1---Maximillian Gotz----Where is he now? GP2:Alexandre Premat----Where is he now? F1:Fernando Alonso---2x WDC F1:Heikki----Now with lotus, maybe for a reason? F1:Jenson----1xWDC Same thing can be said for Vettel all nobody's until he teamed up with Di Resta in F3, and whats Paul done? Become DTM champion and is already outdoing Sutil who was pritty steady against Lewis in Formula 3.
It does not really matter if you have beaten your team mate every year. The thing that matters is if you beat everyone, not just your team mate. You can't call any driver on the grid apart from Schumacher (the first Schumacher not Schumach2er) 'great' because they have not proved it over a sustained career. Hamilton or Vettel could not win another WDC and they would finish on 1 WDC which would hardly make them great. Conversly they could also win another 3 which then would mean that they could be thought of as being great. In my opinion I think Vettel, Hamilton and Alonso have the potential of being one of the 'greats' but only time will tell. PS. Is finishing level on points really beating your team mate? Technically yes because he had more second places, but it is not really beating them.
That's why the OP was careful to say Hamilton has never been beaten by a team mate, rather than he has beaten all his team mates. Also, I thought the countback only applied to first place in order to decide the WDC. Anyone further down the standings simply finish joint second or joint sixth or whatever.
But that's because his driving is entirely in this era isn't it! - It's a bit like saying you or I could never have flown a Spitfire in WWII. - Had we been the right age at the time, I'm sure that like many young men at the time, at least one of us could!
Actually Browser, I do not agree with this. Many people genuinely consider Sir Stirling Moss to be one of the greats, yet he never won even one World Championship. 'Greatness' in the human sense infers and requires a reference to 'quality', since a human is more than ('greater' than) an automaton or mere machine. Statistics are quantitative; not qualitative. - - - P.S. This does not mean statistics are irrelevant; just that they do not in themselves prove or disprove 'greatness'.
Cosi, Of course statistics alone do not account to greatness - if that were the case every team would be trying to sign Schumacher. However, Browser does make a good point - if Hamilton fails to win another Championship, he wouldn't have this great status. Many times hes had the right car but fails to get the job done. You make a fair point about Moss and his quality, but keeping on topic with Hamilton, hes never shown the exceptional quality like the greats have, and more importantly, he isnt consistent enough. By the way, I am very surprised you think Hamilton is more talented than Senna. Bruno Senna maybe, but not Ayrton (just my opinion).
In the sense he couldn't pull half the moves he does if he was in the 50's-60's. Lewis might go for any opening he wants, but it's only because he knows he has a good chance coming out alive from it if he completly fks it up.
With the greatest respect Silver, your point goes nowhere. People belong entirely in their era. This means that all of the circumstances of the past were things that anyone in the past had to deal with. Could a cave-man drive a car? Who knows - he never had one! Could a human from 500 years in future drive and compete in the manner of the present; assuming he is still not capable of time travel? All drivers of the past had to deal with all factors of the past. Your point therefore only becomes relevant if and when time travel becomes a reality. Without it, our man from the future has no possibility of any comparison whatsoever; for better or worse! - We only have the present. And so far as I am aware, there is no evidence that this has not always been the case in the past!
