The video above is neither for or against him being
the GOAT; I use to rate people in such ways but I realize more and more that GOAT debates in any profession/sport that evolves over time (pretty much all of them) are pointless, similar to who is the best musician of all time: Some people thinks it's how fast they can play, for some it's how many records they've sold, how many hit songs they've written, others think it's how well they can improvise. For others they worship their tone and for others it's just how their music makes them feel...endless reasons that inevitably make the GOAT moniker have little weight because there's no gold standard for greatness.
Similarly in racing you have fans with different barometers and different biases towards certain facets of what makes a driver the "best". Some drivers put in legendary drives or break records, that are praised by some and go unnoticed by others...so it's ultimately emotional arguments that can never have a clear cut winner. Even stats which were made for purposes of comparison are often disputed for every and any reason as well.
In the end, I think many arguments against Hamilton often discredit his achievements in a Merc unfairly and disregard the things he did pre-Mercedes and pre-F1. I think Hamilton should be ranked with the all time greats...no disclaimer, no asterisk...point blank period.
All that said, lets assume a GOAT is possible:
The car argument: Most of the drivers people are suggesting here as GOAT instead of Hamilton also won their WDC(s) in cars that were, at worse the 2nd best car and at best just as OP as the W11 was this year...how can you discredit Hamilton's innate ability because of the Merc and not discredit Schumacher for the Ferrari that was OP for at least 2-3 seasons and the 94 Benetton that allegedly had TC, or Mansell who only won a WDC in the active suspension Williams, Prost who won all but 1 WDC with McLaren: the "Merc" of the 1980's. It goes on and on...and for the record I think all those drivers I named are exceptional, however Hamilton doesn't get a pass for whatever reason. Where's the consistency? If Hamilton is average then half of the legends are average by proxy. Not to mention the whole car argument is nullified in rain races and HAM has proven himself time and time again in the wet in a Merc, In a Mclaren, in GP2, etc.
The technology argument: the "No driver in the modern era (i.e. last 20 years) can stand up to the real "legends" because the cars drive themselves nowadays"
...so by that measure, any legend from the 70's to 90's must suck compared to 50's - 60's drivers because Aero (and subsequently ground effect) were some of the first "driver assists"...wait, but 60's drivers must also suck compared to the pre-1958-59 guys because having the engine behind you balanced the car much more...but then again drivers of today have to react at higher speeds and undergo way more G's than the 1950's guys...it's a circular argument. Similar is the "Fangio couldn't handle a modern car, Hamilton could handle a vintage car" opinion: A 20 year old "Fangio" growing up in this era would be a finely tuned athlete just like modern day guys and crush the competition...similarly, I believe a 40 year old "Hamilton" competing against mostly the upper class gentlemen with more money than skill would have the skills and build necessary to dominate. Don't assume either would lack the ability to adapt to their time...if we're entertaining hypothetical arguments that is.
The personality argument: People voting no simply because they don't like him (as a person, not as a driver)... LMAO
...I didn't realise being saintly/perfect outside the car (whatever that is to you) was a prerequisite of being the F1 GOAT...this isn't Miss Universe guys it's FORMULA ONE. None of the other guys frequently mentioned could claim to be any better...in fact, most of them are/were proper a-holes in one way or another depending on who you talk to...so irrelevant.
and finally...
the "Russell dominated in the W11 in 1 race so Hamilton must suck" argument:
Russell is a strong F2 Champion that ended up in a crappy car. Russell is also 22 years old. Everyone likes to claim Russell/Leclerc/Verstappen would be WDC in the Merc (and I don't doubt that at all). HOWEVER...Hamilton is almost
15 years older than these guys...his reflexes shouldn't be on par or better than someone of their age and caliber in a single race, let alone countless races across several seasons...but somehow it is...that's not average.
That race didn't prove that Hamilton is average...the Merc is powerful, no argument there; on the contrary it showed that he's a middle age guy
with the same speed as 20 year olds that trained for this all their life...and his proven consistency makes him more valuable than Russell, Verstappen and Leclerc (they'll get there, but not quite there yet). Lewis Hamilton is an exceptional Formula 1 driver...there was only one direction this poll could go (given past threads about him)...but that doesn't mean Hamilton is not brilliant or not deserving of being in the GOAT discussion.
