Full Version: Lewis Hamilton (merged)
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251
I understand what was meant by the cultural reference. It is not so much what was said, but the context that it was said in.
QUOTE (Slartibartfast @ Nov 25 2009, 11:17) 
If you re-read airwise's post, he refers to cultural as well as racial motivations. He also states that it is his belief that some of the dislike of Hamilton is due to these reasons. He has not suggested that there is a racist element in each individual's dislike and I don't think his post should not be read as such. I would be (pleasantly) surprised if there were no racist F1 followers, so it does not seem unreasonable to believe that some people dislike Hamilton for racial reasons.
It would certainly be wrong to suggest that anyone who dislikes Hamilton does so because of his colour, there are enough reasons to dislike him without that.
It would certainly be wrong to suggest that anyone who dislikes Hamilton does so because of his colour, there are enough reasons to dislike him without that.
I don't believe for a second that this race thingy, brought up 9 out of 10 times by people defending Hamilton, is just an innocent observation like you try to portray. Sure I agree that there statistically have to be people who hate him because he's black, but until they verbally give that away, it's absolutely no use to bring it up again and again. The race card is around here mainly use to place every critic of Hamilton under general suspicion and thereby automatically devalue whatever is actually written.
The discussion is heading off topic, can we please keep the discussion about Lewis Hamilton, not his supporters or those who do not support him.
QUOTE (p432rpp @ Nov 25 2009, 08:36)
Lewis Hamilton on BBC Children in Need - Friday 20th: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ9QuQIW63I
Nice.
But I'm a bit disappointed to see he let that cocky little bastard win the race. 
QUOTE (MegaManson @ Nov 25 2009, 17:13)
I highly doubt there is any racism at all with regards to Hamilton, in my particular case if he had blue eyes and blond hair I would not change a single word I have posted in this thread it would be like for like, apart from "Hamilton's Family" and 1 blacked up guy in Barcelona this year I think racism is as good as non existent with regards to Hamilton, indeed the only person I know that is racist towards Hamilton in my social circle is a BLACK guy who hates Hamilton for having a white mother and considers him a traitor to blacks for that
90% of music in the UK charts is hip hop and R+B and the premiership is way more popular than F1 in the UK so Hamilton is no different to 90% of Brits there
90% of music in the UK charts is hip hop and R+B and the premiership is way more popular than F1 in the UK so Hamilton is no different to 90% of Brits there
I agree with you that I think only a very small minority of people who dislike Hamilton are racist. I don't think we need to bring race into this. But come on, you don't seriously expect any of us here to believe that there is a racist black guy in your social circle and the white people in this social circle are fine with him being in it and he's fine with being in it? That sounds as absurd as a bunch of black people having a neo nazi in their social circle who views any mixed race person or interracial couple as a traitor to their white race. How absurd. Please don't insult our intelligence.
Let's label racist posts as racist then. But can we stop debating racism when we should be talking about the rest of Lewis other than the colour of his skin.
I saw Lewis on BBC CiN. Very good. Very very touching.
I saw Lewis on BBC CiN. Very good. Very very touching.
QUOTE (Michael1 X @ Nov 25 2009, 10:43)
Did they go to the stewards together which when they both lied. I havent seen anything to suggest Ryan lied first, I think its something the fanboys made up to excuse Lewis.
There is no logic behind, why he should he have lied first
He confirmed several times that he let Trulli pass, during the race an short after it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ9QuQIW63I
And i remember he was asked at the stewarts to confirm the statements from Dave Ryan
So Ryan must have spoken first.
QUOTE (stuckinsecond @ Nov 25 2009, 10:59)
I agree with you that I think only a very small minority of people who dislike Hamilton are racist. I don't think we need to bring race into this. But come on, you don't seriously expect any of us here to believe that there is a racist black guy in your social circle and the white people in this social circle are fine with him being in it and he's fine with being in it? That sounds as absurd as a bunch of black people having a neo nazi in their social circle who views any mixed race person or interracial couple as a traitor to their white race. How absurd. Please don't insult our intelligence.
He is not in the same circle I know him through another environment work related, we have dined together a couple of times so I would in hindsight best describe him as a business acquaintance, he does not personally know anyone else that I am friendly with, how his social circle of friends handle him I have no idea tbh, maybe social circle was the wrong term
Lewis showed his natural inclination when he got out of the car, and said to at least one camera crew, possibly more, that he was told to pass and "you heard the radio, right?". His natural inclination was to be honest and open. Somewhere between that and being in the FIA meeting (which I think was a few minutes later?) with Ryan he states the opposite statement that he wasn't told to pass. It doesn't make any sense that in a few minutes he would completely change his inclination of his own volition without the idea coming from elsewhere, especially seeing as he has made a point of telling the truth on camera at least once.
Lewis said "When I went into the meeting, I had no intention (to lie). I just wanted to tell my story and see what happened." Lewis claims that Dave Ryan had instructed him to "withhold information". Both of these statements agree with the fact that he got out of the car and told everyone he spoke to that he had been told to let Trulli pass.
I think that Dave Ryan simply wanted to avoid talking about the radio instructions, but actually in the meeting they were asked outright and that caught them out. So one or the other of them decided on the spur of the moment to specifically deny it and then they were stuck with this lie until the proof comes out a few days later.
But in any case I don't believe that Lewis, without Ryan, would have gone into the meeting and lied. That's why Ryan was fired.
"We recognise Lewis's efforts to set the record straight," said an FIA spokesman. "It would appear he was put in an impossible position."
Lewis doesn't deserve any sympathy, he shouldn't have agreed to lie or lied. But it's a bit of a stretch to try to make out that it was his idea and some evidence of his natural character. That just doesn't agree with the facts.
Lewis said "When I went into the meeting, I had no intention (to lie). I just wanted to tell my story and see what happened." Lewis claims that Dave Ryan had instructed him to "withhold information". Both of these statements agree with the fact that he got out of the car and told everyone he spoke to that he had been told to let Trulli pass.
I think that Dave Ryan simply wanted to avoid talking about the radio instructions, but actually in the meeting they were asked outright and that caught them out. So one or the other of them decided on the spur of the moment to specifically deny it and then they were stuck with this lie until the proof comes out a few days later.
But in any case I don't believe that Lewis, without Ryan, would have gone into the meeting and lied. That's why Ryan was fired.
"We recognise Lewis's efforts to set the record straight," said an FIA spokesman. "It would appear he was put in an impossible position."
Lewis doesn't deserve any sympathy, he shouldn't have agreed to lie or lied. But it's a bit of a stretch to try to make out that it was his idea and some evidence of his natural character. That just doesn't agree with the facts.
QUOTE (Guizotia @ Nov 25 2009, 11:18)
Lewis showed his natural inclination when he got out of the car, and said to at least one camera crew, possibly more, that he was told to pass and "you heard the radio, right?". His natural inclination was to be honest and open. Somewhere between that and being in the FIA meeting (which I think was a few minutes later?) with Ryan he states the opposite statement that he wasn't told to pass. It doesn't make any sense that in a few minutes he would completely change his inclination of his own volition without the idea coming from elsewhere, especially seeing as he has made a point of telling the truth on camera at least once.
Lewis said "When I went into the meeting, I had no intention (to lie). I just wanted to tell my story and see what happened." Lewis claims that Dave Ryan had instructed him to "withhold information". Both of these statements agree with the fact that he got out of the car and told everyone he spoke to that he had been told to let Trulli pass.
I think that Dave Ryan simply wanted to avoid talking about the radio instructions, but actually in the meeting they were asked outright and that caught them out. So one or the other of them decided on the spur of the moment to specifically deny it and then they were stuck with this lie until the proof comes out a few days later.
But in any case I don't believe that Lewis, without Ryan, would have gone into the meeting and lied. That's why Ryan was fired.
"We recognise Lewis's efforts to set the record straight," said an FIA spokesman. "It would appear he was put in an impossible position."
Lewis doesn't deserve any sympathy, he shouldn't have agreed to lie or lied. But it's a bit of a stretch to try to make out that it was his idea and some evidence of his natural character. That just doesn't agree with the facts.
Lewis said "When I went into the meeting, I had no intention (to lie). I just wanted to tell my story and see what happened." Lewis claims that Dave Ryan had instructed him to "withhold information". Both of these statements agree with the fact that he got out of the car and told everyone he spoke to that he had been told to let Trulli pass.
I think that Dave Ryan simply wanted to avoid talking about the radio instructions, but actually in the meeting they were asked outright and that caught them out. So one or the other of them decided on the spur of the moment to specifically deny it and then they were stuck with this lie until the proof comes out a few days later.
But in any case I don't believe that Lewis, without Ryan, would have gone into the meeting and lied. That's why Ryan was fired.
"We recognise Lewis's efforts to set the record straight," said an FIA spokesman. "It would appear he was put in an impossible position."
Lewis doesn't deserve any sympathy, he shouldn't have agreed to lie or lied. But it's a bit of a stretch to try to make out that it was his idea and some evidence of his natural character. That just doesn't agree with the facts.
Lewis does not have alzheimers though, he will remember what he said on the radio, he will remember what he said to the camera crew so he should have said "Dave don't be such a dickhead I have already said to the camera crew, I have already said on the radio, we won't get away with this shit so I am not doing it"
Lewis became a willing conspirator when he failed to dissuade Ryan from Ryan's suggested course of actions
True - but like it or not, its old news.
QUOTE (Guizotia @ Nov 25 2009, 12:18)
Lewis showed his natural inclination when he got out of the car, and said to at least one camera crew, possibly more, that he was told to pass and "you heard the radio, right?". His natural inclination was to be honest and open. Somewhere between that and being in the FIA meeting (which I think was a few minutes later?) with Ryan he states the opposite statement that he wasn't told to pass. It doesn't make any sense that in a few minutes he would completely change his inclination of his own volition without the idea coming from elsewhere, especially seeing as he has made a point of telling the truth on camera at least once.
Lewis said "When I went into the meeting, I had no intention (to lie). I just wanted to tell my story and see what happened." Lewis claims that Dave Ryan had instructed him to "withhold information". Both of these statements agree with the fact that he got out of the car and told everyone he spoke to that he had been told to let Trulli pass.
I think that Dave Ryan simply wanted to avoid talking about the radio instructions, but actually in the meeting they were asked outright and that caught them out. So one or the other of them decided on the spur of the moment to specifically deny it and then they were stuck with this lie until the proof comes out a few days later.
But in any case I don't believe that Lewis, without Ryan, would have gone into the meeting and lied. That's why Ryan was fired.
"We recognise Lewis's efforts to set the record straight," said an FIA spokesman. "It would appear he was put in an impossible position."
Lewis doesn't deserve any sympathy, he shouldn't have agreed to lie or lied. But it's a bit of a stretch to try to make out that it was his idea and some evidence of his natural character. That just doesn't agree with the facts.
Lewis said "When I went into the meeting, I had no intention (to lie). I just wanted to tell my story and see what happened." Lewis claims that Dave Ryan had instructed him to "withhold information". Both of these statements agree with the fact that he got out of the car and told everyone he spoke to that he had been told to let Trulli pass.
I think that Dave Ryan simply wanted to avoid talking about the radio instructions, but actually in the meeting they were asked outright and that caught them out. So one or the other of them decided on the spur of the moment to specifically deny it and then they were stuck with this lie until the proof comes out a few days later.
But in any case I don't believe that Lewis, without Ryan, would have gone into the meeting and lied. That's why Ryan was fired.
"We recognise Lewis's efforts to set the record straight," said an FIA spokesman. "It would appear he was put in an impossible position."
Lewis doesn't deserve any sympathy, he shouldn't have agreed to lie or lied. But it's a bit of a stretch to try to make out that it was his idea and some evidence of his natural character. That just doesn't agree with the facts.
Okay, if you insist we shall henceforth state only that it's not in his character to come up with lies himself but only to readily go along with suggestions from other people to lie, and stick to it. Is that better?
And anyway IMO he has just shown to belong into the piranhia club together with the rest of them, nothing more. The only thing that has been put to rest is the romantic idea that he somehow works from a higher moral ground. Or let's say it should have put that myth to rest - this thread is proof that it still hasn't for everyone.
And once more, the thing that continues to baffle me far more than the lies itself is the sheer stupidity to do it, telling two contradicting stories in the space of 30 minutes.
It often gets overlooked or even ignored that it is not just inside the car that a driver needs to get to grip with things. Lewis will have done a lot of growing up from this episode. A seasoned professional, hopefully, would not have allowed himself to be put into that position. I have no axe to grind one way or the other, however I do concur with the view that Lewis' first inclination was to tell the truth. I accepted his acknowledgement and apology and that is an end to it so far as I am concerned.
F1 driver usually do what the team asks, don't really see what the fuss is about.
QUOTE (craftverk @ Nov 25 2009, 12:51)
F1 driver usually do what the team asks, don't really see what the fuss is about.
Well, it's a bit difficult with Hammy: apparently there shall not be any fuss when he goes against the teams wishes, but also not if he goes along with them.
So in short, whatever he does shall be fine, did I get that right?
QUOTE (velgajski1 @ Nov 25 2009, 04:36)
And its mostly cause of tv commentary that for example favor Alonso alot and dislike Hamilton.
When Alonso won in Singapore GP 2008., commentary screamed 'Braaaavoooo maeestroooo', even though it was luck induced victory (well, later we seen it wasn't just luck).
When Lewis passed Glock in 2008. first thing that idiot commentary pronounced was "Glock let him through, don't know if he had some problem, looked weird, he slowed down alot".
When Lewis won 2 races this season most comments were: "Yes, Mclaren made an excellent job with this years car" or "Lewis took advantage of KERS and excellent Mclaren to win a race".
These things form public opinion of people who aren't f1 fans and don't watch season carefully.
When Alonso won in Singapore GP 2008., commentary screamed 'Braaaavoooo maeestroooo', even though it was luck induced victory (well, later we seen it wasn't just luck).
When Lewis passed Glock in 2008. first thing that idiot commentary pronounced was "Glock let him through, don't know if he had some problem, looked weird, he slowed down alot".
When Lewis won 2 races this season most comments were: "Yes, Mclaren made an excellent job with this years car" or "Lewis took advantage of KERS and excellent Mclaren to win a race".
These things form public opinion of people who aren't f1 fans and don't watch season carefully.
We must be watching different feeds, velga....
Aside from anything else, did you want the commnetary to yell "BRAVO MAESTRO!" when Lewis passed a backmarker who was on dries in the wet? If you DO think that, don't worry - there's stuff out there for you - I remember a Top Gear article from about this time last year, detailling in heroic terms the courageous comeback, the massive rate of knots at which he caught Glock (framed for that moment not as a bumbling backmarker but as a steely opponent), the uncompromising way in which he disposed of them and claimed his maiden WDC... it was breathless and torrid stuff, lacking only an inspirational soundtrack.
It quite ignored that everyone was catching Glock at roughly the same rate and that Glock was on dries while Lewis was on wets and it was raining. These things form public opinion of people who aren't f1 fans and don't watch season carefully.
I've rarely heard a criticism of Hamilton on the BBC/ITV feed. I suppose that I could be listening selectively, but than, so could you.
QUOTE (craftverk @ Nov 25 2009, 11:51)
F1 driver usually do what the team asks, don't really see what the fuss is about.
I've been saying this since march, it really was/is a storm in a teacup.
I wonder how many driver "lied" about how much they backed off in the doubled waved yellow sector of Suzuka quali? At least one I'm sure... if not all... frankly, who cares?
Lets not forget that Trulli also lied about it to the press he said something along the lines of "I had no choice but to re-pass him", where the video shows that he made no attempt to slow at all. Let's not lose sight of the fact that it was Jarno in the wrong, he was the one that passed under the safety car after trulli decided that the grass was preferable to the track!
Ryan and Hamilton bizarrly decided that lying to the stewards would better their chances of maintaining the position that (by the rules) was rightfully theirs, presumably they thought the radio discussions of letting JT back through would be incriminating.
My point is I guess, I'm amazed people are still talking about it, though the people still talking about it are not at all suprising to me
QUOTE (Slartibartfast @ Nov 25 2009, 10:17)
If you re-read airwise's post, he refers to cultural as well as racial motivations. He also states that it is his belief that some of the dislike of Hamilton is due to these reasons. He has not suggested that there is a racist element in each individual's dislike and I don't think his post should not be read as such. I would be (pleasantly) surprised if there were no racist F1 followers, so it does not seem unreasonable to believe that some people dislike Hamilton for racial reasons.
It would certainly be wrong to suggest that anyone who dislikes Hamilton does so because of his colour, there are enough reasons to dislike him without that.
p.s. Welcome back!
It would certainly be wrong to suggest that anyone who dislikes Hamilton does so because of his colour, there are enough reasons to dislike him without that.
p.s. Welcome back!
thank you for that - it's refreshing to see.
For what it's worth, I'm saying that maybe some find it easier to dislike the guy because of inbuilt hereditary racial discrimination - in the same way that some perfectly reasonable people might for instance employ a white guy over an equally qualified coloured candidate because of a subconscious bias - not because of a conscious racist thought pattern.
And I don't think it is cheap or inconsequential to bring this up when discussing Hamilton. It is part of life and equally applicable here - however enraged some might get by the thought. I would say it's a far more plausible argument that many put forward on this thread.
QUOTE (learningtobelost @ Nov 25 2009, 12:57)
I've been saying this since march, it really was/is a storm in a teacup.
I wonder how many driver "lied" about how much they backed off in the doubled waved yellow sector of Suzuka quali? At least one I'm sure... if not all... frankly, who cares?
Lets not forget that Trulli also lied about it to the press he said something along the lines of "I had no choice but to re-pass him", where the video shows that he made no attempt to slow at all. Let's not lose sight of the fact that it was Jarno in the wrong, he was the one that passed under the safety car after trulli decided that the grass was preferable to the track!
Ryan and Hamilton bizarrly decided that lying to the stewards would better their chances of maintaining the position that (by the rules) was rightfully theirs, presumably they thought the radio discussions of letting JT back through would be incriminating.
My point is I guess, I'm amazed people are still talking about it, though the people still talking about it are not at all suprising to me
I wonder how many driver "lied" about how much they backed off in the doubled waved yellow sector of Suzuka quali? At least one I'm sure... if not all... frankly, who cares?
Lets not forget that Trulli also lied about it to the press he said something along the lines of "I had no choice but to re-pass him", where the video shows that he made no attempt to slow at all. Let's not lose sight of the fact that it was Jarno in the wrong, he was the one that passed under the safety car after trulli decided that the grass was preferable to the track!
Ryan and Hamilton bizarrly decided that lying to the stewards would better their chances of maintaining the position that (by the rules) was rightfully theirs, presumably they thought the radio discussions of letting JT back through would be incriminating.
My point is I guess, I'm amazed people are still talking about it, though the people still talking about it are not at all suprising to me
Trulli is not a role model though, Hamilton is probably the biggest role model in world sport along with Michael Jordan, Tiger and Cristiano Ronaldo, millions around the world look up to him so out of all the drivers on the grid he is the one that has to be the most honourably behaved as he is the role model who people look up to around the world and if he lies it teaches kids that it is ok to lie, Trulli is not such a role model
QUOTE (Bruce @ Nov 25 2009, 13:15)
It quite ignored that everyone was catching Glock at roughly the same rate and that Glock was on dries while Lewis was on wets and it was raining. These things form public opinion of people who aren't f1 fans and don't watch season carefully.
Actually, if you look at the piece of commentary that veg is complaining about, the exact same complaint that you mention here could be applied to it.
I think what veg was asking for was balanced commentary, which would have mentioned that: (a) Glock was passed by Hamilton not beacause of anything strange but because of the thing that put him ahead in the first place (not stopping to go on wets); and (b) Alonso's win in Singapore had an element of ... ahem ... luck about it.
It is, of course, much the same with UK commentary (although the beeb seems much better than ITV on this score).
QUOTE (airwise @ Nov 25 2009, 12:59)
thank you for that - it's refreshing to see.
For what it's worth, I'm saying that maybe some find it easier to dislike the guy because of inbuilt hereditary racial discrimination - in the same way that some perfectly reasonable people might for instance employ a white guy over an equally qualified coloured candidate because of a subconscious bias - not because of a conscious racist thought pattern.
And I don't think it is cheap or inconsequential to bring this up when discussing Hamilton. It is part of life and equally applicable here - however enraged some might get by the thought. I would say it's a far more plausible argument that many put forward on this thread.
For what it's worth, I'm saying that maybe some find it easier to dislike the guy because of inbuilt hereditary racial discrimination - in the same way that some perfectly reasonable people might for instance employ a white guy over an equally qualified coloured candidate because of a subconscious bias - not because of a conscious racist thought pattern.
And I don't think it is cheap or inconsequential to bring this up when discussing Hamilton. It is part of life and equally applicable here - however enraged some might get by the thought. I would say it's a far more plausible argument that many put forward on this thread.
You are implying that there are people on this board who are against Hamilton because of his skin colour, if you are so convinced as to this then you should publicly name them so they can give a defence, unless you name names then it is not unreasonable to think that you think EVERYONE who is anti Hamilton on this board is so because he is black
QUOTE (learningtobelost @ Nov 25 2009, 20:57)
I've been saying this since march, it really was/is a storm in a teacup.
I wonder how many driver "lied" about how much they backed off in the doubled waved yellow sector of Suzuka quali? At least one I'm sure... if not all... frankly, who cares?
Lets not forget that Trulli also lied about it to the press he said something along the lines of "I had no choice but to re-pass him", where the video shows that he made no attempt to slow at all. Let's not lose sight of the fact that it was Jarno in the wrong, he was the one that passed under the safety car after trulli decided that the grass was preferable to the track!
Ryan and Hamilton bizarrly decided that lying to the stewards would better their chances of maintaining the position that (by the rules) was rightfully theirs, presumably they thought the radio discussions of letting JT back through would be incriminating.
My point is I guess, I'm amazed people are still talking about it, though the people still talking about it are not at all suprising to me
I wonder how many driver "lied" about how much they backed off in the doubled waved yellow sector of Suzuka quali? At least one I'm sure... if not all... frankly, who cares?
Lets not forget that Trulli also lied about it to the press he said something along the lines of "I had no choice but to re-pass him", where the video shows that he made no attempt to slow at all. Let's not lose sight of the fact that it was Jarno in the wrong, he was the one that passed under the safety car after trulli decided that the grass was preferable to the track!
Ryan and Hamilton bizarrly decided that lying to the stewards would better their chances of maintaining the position that (by the rules) was rightfully theirs, presumably they thought the radio discussions of letting JT back through would be incriminating.
My point is I guess, I'm amazed people are still talking about it, though the people still talking about it are not at all suprising to me
I agree it's a storm in a teacup. I don't agree that Trulli did anything wrong. I think it was quite clear, from Trulli's point of view, that Lewis had pulled over to one side and slowed down significantly and hence Trulli went past. It's not fair to call it a lie when he says he had no choice but to re-pass. Also I don't see how Jarno was in the wrong because he went onto the grass. He didn't pass under the safety car. He simply slid off the track on cold tyres and came back onto the track 1 place down in 4th until Lewis let him past again.
Neither did McLaren or Lewis deserve that 3rd place once Lewis let Trulli back past again. McLaren made a huge mistake in not knowing the rules properly. Trulli slid off onto the grass and Lewis could not help but go past. McLaren was ridiculously paranoid (though probably not surprising after the farce that was Spa 2008) and instructed Lewis to let Trulli through, even though Lewis protested against it as he knew he did nothing wrong. However the team demanded Lewis let Trulli past and then after the race the team must have felt stupid to give him the wrong instructions and in their efforts to get back their previously rightful podium, they did something even more stupid by lying.
QUOTE (airwise @ Nov 25 2009, 13:59)
thank you for that - it's refreshing to see.
For what it's worth, I'm saying that maybe some find it easier to dislike the guy because of inbuilt hereditary racial discrimination - in the same way that some perfectly reasonable people might for instance employ a white guy over an equally qualified coloured candidate because of a subconscious bias - not because of a conscious racist thought pattern.
For what it's worth, I'm saying that maybe some find it easier to dislike the guy because of inbuilt hereditary racial discrimination - in the same way that some perfectly reasonable people might for instance employ a white guy over an equally qualified coloured candidate because of a subconscious bias - not because of a conscious racist thought pattern.
So racism in an inbuilt hereditary thing now is it? I never heard of a rascist gene before, what studies are you referring to exactly? Utter rubbish, and as usual typical Hamilton lovers sinking to the gutter accusing others of racism. Utterly disgraceful and Its sad to see this kind of offensive behaviour allowed to be posted. Here is an example of why Hamilton is so disliked and nothing to do with his skin colour.
QUOTE
Lewis Hamilton at Monza tempted his Ferrari rivals into a psychological battle of words, as the championship battle whittles down to just five races to go.
Hamilton's strike did not end at one Ferrari driver, however, as he analysed the reasons for how he closed on world champion Kimi Raikkonen in the drizzly last laps at Spa-Francorchamps a week ago.
"That's the way he drives. If you don't have the balls to brake late, that's your problem," the Briton said, referring to Raikkonen.
"At the end of the day, in those situations, it's the driver who can feel the grip more - and put the car more on the edge - that gets past. I'm great in those conditions," Hamilton added.
Hamilton's strike did not end at one Ferrari driver, however, as he analysed the reasons for how he closed on world champion Kimi Raikkonen in the drizzly last laps at Spa-Francorchamps a week ago.
"That's the way he drives. If you don't have the balls to brake late, that's your problem," the Briton said, referring to Raikkonen.
"At the end of the day, in those situations, it's the driver who can feel the grip more - and put the car more on the edge - that gets past. I'm great in those conditions," Hamilton added.
How many drivers in history have talked os disrespectfully about their opponents?
QUOTE (airwise @ Nov 25 2009, 20:59)
thank you for that - it's refreshing to see.
For what it's worth, I'm saying that maybe some find it easier to dislike the guy because of inbuilt hereditary racial discrimination - in the same way that some perfectly reasonable people might for instance employ a white guy over an equally qualified coloured candidate because of a subconscious bias - not because of a conscious racist thought pattern.
And I don't think it is cheap or inconsequential to bring this up when discussing Hamilton. It is part of life and equally applicable here - however enraged some might get by the thought. I would say it's a far more plausible argument that many put forward on this thread.
For what it's worth, I'm saying that maybe some find it easier to dislike the guy because of inbuilt hereditary racial discrimination - in the same way that some perfectly reasonable people might for instance employ a white guy over an equally qualified coloured candidate because of a subconscious bias - not because of a conscious racist thought pattern.
And I don't think it is cheap or inconsequential to bring this up when discussing Hamilton. It is part of life and equally applicable here - however enraged some might get by the thought. I would say it's a far more plausible argument that many put forward on this thread.
Sorry but though what you say MAY be true for some people, it is still pure speculation (which normally is fine) but in this case what it does is devalue or misappropriate the views of critics who don't fall into the category you mention.
Racism is a very serious issue and by speculating on it, it does nothing but devalue and remove from its true seriousness and instead becomes the old adage of the boy who cried wolf - that is, it gets used, thrown about, and aimed so often that people don't take it seriously anymore and then the victims of the real cases of it suffer as a result.
The charge and even speculation of it should only ever be leveled at those who said or done things to justify the accusation. Even the worst chest beating, frothing Hamilton hater does not deserve even a hint of this charge no matter how many times they camp out in this thread and make the same old negative statements over and over and over again. In fact, to even cast aspersions of racism on those people is actually a type of reverse racism in itself. That is, bringing the issue of race into discussion when nothing the haters themselves have said has raised the issue of race.
QUOTE (vikingwarrior1 @ Nov 25 2009, 13:16)
So racism in an inbuilt hereditary thing now is it? I never heard of a rascist gene before, what studies are you referring to exactly? Utter rubbish, and as usual typical Hamilton lovers sinking to the gutter accusing others of racism. Utterly disgraceful and Its sad to see this kind of offensive behaviour allowed to be posted. Here is an example of why Hamilton is so disliked and nothing to do with his skin colour.
Spectacular first post. Subconscious bias does not equal genetic predisposition.
QUOTE (Bruce @ Nov 25 2009, 13:15)
We must be watching different feeds, velga....
Aside from anything else, did you want the commnetary to yell "BRAVO MAESTRO!" when Lewis passed a backmarker who was on dries in the wet? If you DO think that, don't worry - there's stuff out there for you - I remember a Top Gear article from about this time last year, detailling in heroic terms the courageous comeback, the massive rate of knots at which he caught Glock (framed for that moment not as a bumbling backmarker but as a steely opponent), the uncompromising way in which he disposed of them and claimed his maiden WDC... it was breathless and torrid stuff, lacking only an inspirational soundtrack.
It quite ignored that everyone was catching Glock at roughly the same rate and that Glock was on dries while Lewis was on wets and it was raining. These things form public opinion of people who aren't f1 fans and don't watch season carefully.
I've rarely heard a criticism of Hamilton on the BBC/ITV feed. I suppose that I could be listening selectively, but than, so could you.
Aside from anything else, did you want the commnetary to yell "BRAVO MAESTRO!" when Lewis passed a backmarker who was on dries in the wet? If you DO think that, don't worry - there's stuff out there for you - I remember a Top Gear article from about this time last year, detailling in heroic terms the courageous comeback, the massive rate of knots at which he caught Glock (framed for that moment not as a bumbling backmarker but as a steely opponent), the uncompromising way in which he disposed of them and claimed his maiden WDC... it was breathless and torrid stuff, lacking only an inspirational soundtrack.
It quite ignored that everyone was catching Glock at roughly the same rate and that Glock was on dries while Lewis was on wets and it was raining. These things form public opinion of people who aren't f1 fans and don't watch season carefully.
I've rarely heard a criticism of Hamilton on the BBC/ITV feed. I suppose that I could be listening selectively, but than, so could you.
I said - in my country
I'm not watching BBC/ITV... and if what you said is true, I'm glad I don't ;)Yes, 2008 Brazil was exciting, but I didn't find anything superb in way Lewis disposed of Glock. But I also feel that there isn't a single driver in F1 history that could bring that car home 7 seconds earlier than Glock did what would be enough for Massa WDC. In my country, general opinion is... if that was Alonso, and not Glock Lewis wouldn't win his title. And even 'Glock let him pass' theory is not so rare.
Truth of the matter is that Toyota had to risk, they got lucky (since they did profit from their risk), but not lucky enough for Glock to finish even higher.
QUOTE (vikingwarrior1 @ Nov 25 2009, 21:16)
So racism in an inbuilt hereditary thing now is it? I never heard of a rascist gene before, what studies are you referring to exactly? Utter rubbish, and as usual typical Hamilton lovers sinking to the gutter accusing others of racism. Utterly disgraceful and Its sad to see this kind of offensive behaviour allowed to be posted. Here is an example of why Hamilton is so disliked and nothing to do with his skin colour.
How many drivers in history have talked os disrespectfully about their opponents?
QUOTE
Lewis Hamilton at Monza tempted his Ferrari rivals into a psychological battle of words, as the championship battle whittles down to just five races to go.
Hamilton's strike did not end at one Ferrari driver, however, as he analysed the reasons for how he closed on world champion Kimi Raikkonen in the drizzly last laps at Spa-Francorchamps a week ago.
"That's the way he drives. If you don't have the balls to brake late, that's your problem," the Briton said, referring to Raikkonen.
"At the end of the day, in those situations, it's the driver who can feel the grip more - and put the car more on the edge - that gets past. I'm great in those conditions," Hamilton added.
Hamilton's strike did not end at one Ferrari driver, however, as he analysed the reasons for how he closed on world champion Kimi Raikkonen in the drizzly last laps at Spa-Francorchamps a week ago.
"That's the way he drives. If you don't have the balls to brake late, that's your problem," the Briton said, referring to Raikkonen.
"At the end of the day, in those situations, it's the driver who can feel the grip more - and put the car more on the edge - that gets past. I'm great in those conditions," Hamilton added.
How many drivers in history have talked os disrespectfully about their opponents?
I agree with you on the first part regarding the racism part. Regarding the second part - that quote from Lewis is touted often and I agree it is disrespectful. It was purposely disrespectful but I disagree with the journalism piece that claims it is for tempting his Ferrari rivals into a psychological battle. It should be kept in mind that quote by Lewis was made right after the Spa farce. He, quite rightly, felt robbed of his win. He was obviously fuming about it, especially in the context of the whole Spa event where Charlie Whiting misled him and his team and then penalised him for it. He was fuming about it and it is not surprising, though obviously immature and hot headed, that when he was asked about Spa just a few days after the travesty, he felt the need to express his total disgust about it.
Yes it was unfair he levelled a derogatory statement at Kimi, when in fact it was the FIA that he was really angry towards. But obviously he couldn't exactly say anything against the FIA and secondly Ferrari and Kimi didn't help their situation. For one, Ferrari sent their lawyer, Tozzi, in to argue against McLaren when they tried to get their appeal heard. Secondly, Kimi didn't help the situation by coming out and saying the only reason Hamilton overtook him was because he cut the corner.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying Lewis' disrespectful words. But it should be viewed in the context of a complete and utter farce where Lewis was subjected to a great injustice. My point is that he was hardly in a calm frame of mind.
Like I said, it doesn't justify it but it may explain it. Anyway personally I find it surprising that many of the people that think it is outrageous for Lewis to use words to disrespect another person (Kimi) find it perfectly acceptable when Kimi uses both his hands to violently push the chest of another person (a photographer) to the ground who accidentally stepped on the edge of Kimi's bags as he was trying to take a photograph with his eyes glued to the viewfinder. Not the first time either, another time he pushed a marshall trying to help him. Or how about Webber, who is widely regarded as a really genuine and nice guy, who disrespected Kimi by saying he must have been on the vodka. The point is that people can act disrespectfully and out of character when they are upset.
QUOTE (vikingwarrior1 @ Nov 25 2009, 13:16)
So racism in an inbuilt hereditary thing now is it? I never heard of a rascist gene before, what studies are you referring to exactly? Utter rubbish, and as usual typical Hamilton lovers sinking to the gutter accusing others of racism. Utterly disgraceful and Its sad to see this kind of offensive behaviour allowed to be posted. Here is an example of why Hamilton is so disliked and nothing to do with his skin colour.
How many drivers in history have talked os disrespectfully about their opponents?
How many drivers in history have talked os disrespectfully about their opponents?
1)Racism is not genetics, its social. if you grow up in an area, or family that is a racially negative environment theres a chance your likely going to be influenced by it. we all take on aspects of our environments to fit in. human nature is complex and to bundle it down to genetics is ludicrous, we are all influenced by events and circumstance to make us who we are.
2)almost every single 1 at some point has made illusions to dislike of another driver. sorry but this is a competition for the biggest honors in Motor Sport, do you have some kind of rose tinted glasses towards everything else in life, i am yet to see an area where people dont compete aggressively., that is who every single one of us is, competitive. put great honors, Millions of pounds and pride in their and your pretty much guaranteed for heated battles. These comments you decided to trudge up were a week after the Spa incident inwhich Hamilton (not unlike a lot of us) felt he was wronged. If your saying you wouldn't be annoyed and react then your either robotic or you'd have no place in competition because clearly you wouldn't have your heart and soul fully commited to it.
QUOTE (Pingu Pi @ Nov 25 2009, 14:01)
1)Racism is not genetics, its social. if you grow up in an area, or family that is a racially negative environment theres a chance your likely going to be influenced by it. we all take on aspects of our environments to fit in. human nature is complex and to bundle it down to genetics is ludicrous, we are all influenced by events and circumstance to make us who we are.
2)almost every single 1 at some point has made illusions to dislike of another driver. sorry but this is a competition for the biggest honors in Motor Sport, do you have some kind of rose tinted glasses towards everything else in life, i am yet to see an area where people dont compete aggressively., that is who every single one of us is, competitive. put great honors, Millions of pounds and pride in their and your pretty much guaranteed for heated battles. These comments you decided to trudge up were a week after the Spa incident inwhich Hamilton (not unlike a lot of us) felt he was wronged. If your saying you wouldn't be annoyed and react then your either robotic or you'd have no place in competition because clearly you wouldn't have your heart and soul fully commited to it.
2)almost every single 1 at some point has made illusions to dislike of another driver. sorry but this is a competition for the biggest honors in Motor Sport, do you have some kind of rose tinted glasses towards everything else in life, i am yet to see an area where people dont compete aggressively., that is who every single one of us is, competitive. put great honors, Millions of pounds and pride in their and your pretty much guaranteed for heated battles. These comments you decided to trudge up were a week after the Spa incident inwhich Hamilton (not unlike a lot of us) felt he was wronged. If your saying you wouldn't be annoyed and react then your either robotic or you'd have no place in competition because clearly you wouldn't have your heart and soul fully commited to it.
There is a difference between 'allusions to dislike of another driver' and referring to half your competitors collectively as the "monkeys at the back". I'm not suggesting LH should be singled out and vilified; merely offering an example of why he's put rather a lot of backs up.
QUOTE (MegaManson @ Nov 25 2009, 14:02)
Trulli is not a role model though, Hamilton is probably the biggest role model in world sport along with Michael Jordan, Tiger and Cristiano Ronaldo, millions around the world look up to him so out of all the drivers on the grid he is the one that has to be the most honourably behaved as he is the role model who people look up to around the world and if he lies it teaches kids that it is ok to lie, Trulli is not such a role model
from a number of your posts over time, I notice that though you hate him so much, you try to put him on this unrealistically high pedestal...
actually I think its just your mechanism to justify hate, so that whenever he does anything less than that pedestal, you feel you have full rights to bash
I dont think even Hamiltons biggest fans...no one in their right mind will put Lewis Hamilton in the same level as Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods (C. Ronaldo doesnt factor in here either).... cmon wtf!?!?
maybe at the end of his career... but no where near just yet. trying to hold him to those unrealistic standards is unfair...even for bashing
you will probably reply that the media and some phantom fans put him there...id reply to show me the articles that state "Lewis Hamiltons superstar is now big as Micheal Jordan/Tiger Woods"
most Ive heard is he is the Tiger Woods of F1, which is basic reference to a black (mixed race) guy handling biness in a white male dominated sport.
QUOTE (dabrasco @ Nov 25 2009, 14:26)
from a number of your posts over time, I notice that though you hate him so much, you try to put him on this unrealistically high pedestal...
actually I think its just your mechanism to justify hate, so that whenever he does anything less than that pedestal, you feel you have full rights to bash
I dont think even Hamiltons biggest fans...no one in their right mind will put Lewis Hamilton in the same level as Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods (C. Ronaldo doesnt factor in here either).... cmon wtf!?!?
maybe at the end of his career... but no where near just yet. trying to hold him to those unrealistic standards is unfair...even for bashing
you will probably reply that the media and some phantom fans put him there...id reply to show me the articles that state "Lewis Hamiltons superstar is now big as Micheal Jordan/Tiger Woods"
most Ive heard is he is the Tiger Woods of F1, which is basic reference to a black (mixed race) guy handling biness in a white male dominated sport.
actually I think its just your mechanism to justify hate, so that whenever he does anything less than that pedestal, you feel you have full rights to bash
I dont think even Hamiltons biggest fans...no one in their right mind will put Lewis Hamilton in the same level as Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods (C. Ronaldo doesnt factor in here either).... cmon wtf!?!?
maybe at the end of his career... but no where near just yet. trying to hold him to those unrealistic standards is unfair...even for bashing
you will probably reply that the media and some phantom fans put him there...id reply to show me the articles that state "Lewis Hamiltons superstar is now big as Micheal Jordan/Tiger Woods"
most Ive heard is he is the Tiger Woods of F1, which is basic reference to a black (mixed race) guy handling biness in a white male dominated sport.
While I don't have any articles or links to back up my claim I base it on the fact that F1 is the most popular sport in the world judging by tv figures with only Olympics and world cup eclipsing it and with Hamilton being a world champion and F1's first afro carribean driver he probably has the highest profile in F1 so most high profile driver in the worlds biggest sport would certainly in my opinion put him on the level with Woods and Jordan at least outside of the USA
QUOTE (vikingwarrior1 @ Nov 25 2009, 14:16)
How many drivers in history have talked os disrespectfully about their opponents?
The same number that got afterwards slagged and/or ridiculed for it.
Same here, to be expected and utterly ordinary. Hamilton is a bigmouth at times and with that provokes reactions from his opponents and also the public. I think he himself realizes that by now, only his fans haven't quite catched up.
I'm always amazed how a large percentage of every fan group seems to believe it's only their man that gets critizised, or in any case far more than other drivers, when in reality they all get their fair amount of stick, deserved and undeserved. The main deciding factor for that is their respective success, not skin colour or funny eyebrows. Or, like a saying goes here in germany "Viel Feind, viel Ehr'" (Many enemies, much honour).
One has to look no further than our current WDC and his public reception over the past two years to watch that mechanism at work.
Good post Especially liked this bit:
The stick should be taken as a compliment
Especially liked this bit:QUOTE (as65p @ Nov 25 2009, 16:40)
Or, like a saying goes here in germany "Viel Feind, viel Ehr'" (Many enemies, much honour).
The stick should be taken as a compliment
QUOTE (MegaManson @ Nov 25 2009, 14:38)
While I don't have any articles or links to back up my claim I base it on the fact that F1 is the most popular sport in the world judging by tv figures with only Olympics and world cup eclipsing it and with Hamilton being a world champion and F1's first afro carribean driver he probably has the highest profile in F1 so most high profile driver in the worlds biggest sport would certainly in my opinion put him on the level with Woods and Jordan at least outside of the USA
the thing i think about when trying to judge how globally famous somebody is how many people walking down a street in a country would know him. there was a twitter up somewhere in a thread of a picutre of lewis on holiday in america where he told the person who he took the photo with that its nice to go on holiday in america because nobody really recognises him. i doubt this can be said of tiger woods, david beckham etc where no matter where you go you are recognised nevermind america, granted that america seems to have a less hold on F1, but im just sighting it as a point of global awareness of a person through media and advertising...
lewis hamilton is nowhere near as famous as tiger woods and i doubt he ever will be unless he breaks michael schumachers records. Tiger Woods is a global identity specifically through his games, nike and gillete contracts. Lewis hamilton doesn't have these.
not saying he wont get there just that at so young an age and early career hes hasnt tapped up the world yet.
QUOTE (Gareth @ Nov 25 2009, 15:50)
Good post Especially liked this bit:
The stick should be taken as a compliment
Especially liked this bit:The stick should be taken as a compliment
Exactly. That's how it is used in german.
All done?
Good!
/Cue Coronation Street Credits music
Good!
/Cue Coronation Street Credits music
I suspect, with this thread, it's more like the Eastender's drums 
I thought that too for the drama that the drums conjour, but the Coronation Street theme is just that little bit more lame and depressing.
Thread has been tidied up. Can we please get this topic away from black sportsmen and back to Lewis Hamilton.
QUOTE (as65p @ Nov 25 2009, 08:40)
The same number that got afterwards slagged and/or ridiculed for it.
Same here, to be expected and utterly ordinary. Hamilton is a bigmouth at times and with that provokes reactions from his opponents and also the public. I think he himself realizes that by now, only his fans haven't quite catched up.
I'm always amazed how a large percentage of every fan group seems to believe it's only their man that gets critizised, or in any case far more than other drivers, when in reality they all get their fair amount of stick, deserved and undeserved. The main deciding factor for that is their respective success, not skin colour or funny eyebrows. Or, like a saying goes here in germany "Viel Feind, viel Ehr'" (Many enemies, much honour).
One has to look no further than our current WDC and his public reception over the past two years to watch that mechanism at work.
Same here, to be expected and utterly ordinary. Hamilton is a bigmouth at times and with that provokes reactions from his opponents and also the public. I think he himself realizes that by now, only his fans haven't quite catched up.
I'm always amazed how a large percentage of every fan group seems to believe it's only their man that gets critizised, or in any case far more than other drivers, when in reality they all get their fair amount of stick, deserved and undeserved. The main deciding factor for that is their respective success, not skin colour or funny eyebrows. Or, like a saying goes here in germany "Viel Feind, viel Ehr'" (Many enemies, much honour).
One has to look no further than our current WDC and his public reception over the past two years to watch that mechanism at work.
Though there will always be some detractors based on race, I believe they represent very very low numbers. The top guys in sports, I find especially in F1 can either do no wrong or always do wrong depending on if you are a fan or not.
We always have to remember the microscope these guys are constantly under. I'm know I would not want a camera around me when I get emotional about anything, whether it be angry, sad, uncomfortable. I have said and done things that would be embarrasing if they got out or if my children heard me say them. It happens, maybe in the moment, but it happens.
The comments about Kimi was because he was so angry about the Spa decision and he reacted. Many of us would have been angry and maybe have said worse.
QUOTE (F1Johnny @ Nov 25 2009, 18:19)
Though there will always be some detractors based on race, I believe they represent very very low numbers. The top guys in sports, I find especially in F1 can either do no wrong or always do wrong depending on if you are a fan or not.
I hope so, obviously the "issue" is relatively new to F1. In the few cases I saw glimpses of racism here on the board they were dealt with swiftly, what more can you ask? I don't see the sense to make it a hypothetical topic in advance, this isn't the place for that.
QUOTE
We always have to remember the microscope these guys are constantly under. I'm know I would not want a camera around me when I get emotional about anything, whether it be angry, sad, uncomfortable. I have said and done things that would be embarrasing if they got out or if my children heard me say them. It happens, maybe in the moment, but it happens.
Same here.
QUOTE
The comments about Kimi was because he was so angry about the Spa decision and he reacted. Many of us would have been angry and maybe have said worse.
Sounds plausible, and by no means am I against drivers showing their emotions. Still, KR was the wrong tree to bark under in this case. Now if Hamilton had done like Alonso after Monza 2006 qualifying, stormed in the stewards office and shouted at Charlie whiting, he would have had my full support. Maybe channeling your anger at the right targets will come with experience...
QUOTE (dabrasco @ Nov 15 2009, 17:45)
I highly doubt it has much to do about rattling... its just if the speed is there, why waste it going slower just because the rest are going slower... its not like they start the sessions on an empty tank to try to prove something.
Much more likely if you can do it first flying lap do it and save a set of sticker tyres for the race.
QUOTE (as65p @ Nov 25 2009, 12:00)
Sounds plausible, and by no means am I against drivers showing their emotions. Still, KR was the wrong tree to bark under in this case. Now if Hamilton had done like Alonso after Monza 2006 qualifying, stormed in the stewards office and shouted at Charlie whiting, he would have had my full support. Maybe channeling your anger at the right targets will come with experience...
He did mis direct his anger. Also, it means absolutley nothing to Kimi.
QUOTE (vikingwarrior1 @ Nov 25 2009, 14:16)
So racism in an inbuilt hereditary thing now is it? I never heard of a rascist gene before, what studies are you referring to exactly? Utter rubbish, and as usual typical Hamilton lovers sinking to the gutter accusing others of racism. Utterly disgraceful and Its sad to see this kind of offensive behaviour allowed to be posted. Here is an example of why Hamilton is so disliked and nothing to do with his skin colour.
I mostly agree with the first part, but I can't understand why you would hold a driver responsible for the actions of his fans on a forum?
Some other drivers fans can be cocks too, but it hardly reflects on who they support eh?
QUOTE (F1Johnny @ Nov 25 2009, 19:01)
He did mis direct his anger. Also, it means absolutley nothing to Kimi.
And he said it several days after the race so the "heat of the moment" argument is not mitigation, he had time to calm down
If he had got out of the car and ripped off his helmet and said it then it would not matter as it was heat of the moment but days later he should have been calm
QUOTE (velgajski1 @ Nov 25 2009, 08:26)
I said - in my country I'm not watching BBC/ITV... and if what you said is true, I'm glad I don't ;)
Yes, 2008 Brazil was exciting, but I didn't find anything superb in way Lewis disposed of Glock. But I also feel that there isn't a single driver in F1 history that could bring that car home 7 seconds earlier than Glock did what would be enough for Massa WDC. In my country, general opinion is... if that was Alonso, and not Glock Lewis wouldn't win his title. And even 'Glock let him pass' theory is not so rare.
Truth of the matter is that Toyota had to risk, they got lucky (since they did profit from their risk), but not lucky enough for Glock to finish even higher.
I'm not watching BBC/ITV... and if what you said is true, I'm glad I don't ;)Yes, 2008 Brazil was exciting, but I didn't find anything superb in way Lewis disposed of Glock. But I also feel that there isn't a single driver in F1 history that could bring that car home 7 seconds earlier than Glock did what would be enough for Massa WDC. In my country, general opinion is... if that was Alonso, and not Glock Lewis wouldn't win his title. And even 'Glock let him pass' theory is not so rare.
Truth of the matter is that Toyota had to risk, they got lucky (since they did profit from their risk), but not lucky enough for Glock to finish even higher.
ah - thank you for the explanation Velga.... that makes an enormous difference. I think that most of the reason that I am not an ardent fan of Lewis can be traced back to my negative reaction to the sycophantic maunderings of James Allen on the beeb. Sad that I should let my opinions be so coloured by one idiot, but there you go....
Full marks to Lew for getting by TG - and I doubt that there was collusion - but, as you say, it was hardly the pass of the century, so let's not pretend it was. Problem is, it won LH the WDC - so it becomes a case of "what becomes a legend most?" Answer? The extraordinary. I would have thought that LH's second season was extraordinary enough. Apparently, many didn't...
I thought it was utterly extraordinary. Not for any skill, bravery etc on the part of Hamilton. But for the sheer drama that unfolded on our screens as the WDC changed hands at the last corner of the last race of the season as a result of 1 extra point scored. You couldn't have had a tighter finish. Had me on the edge of my seat. Completely caused by circumstance, rather than driver skill, but no less compelling IMO as a result.
QUOTE (Gareth @ Nov 25 2009, 22:58)
I thought it was utterly extraordinary. Not for any skill, bravery etc on the part of Hamilton. But for the sheer drama that unfolded on our screens as the WDC changed hands at the last corner of the last race of the season as a result of 1 extra point scored. You couldn't have had a tighter finish. Had me on the edge of my seat. Completely caused by circumstance, rather than driver skill, but no less compelling IMO as a result.
"Extraordinary" is an understatement! OMG I will never forget it...those last two laps have probably cost about 10 years of my life expectancy.
From despair to ecstasy in the space of a few seconds...
QUOTE (Coral @ Nov 25 2009, 18:31)
"Extraordinary" is an understatement! OMG I will never forget it...those last two laps have probably cost about 10 years of my life expectancy. From despair to ecstasy in the space of a few seconds...
From despair to ecstasy in the space of a few seconds... I STILL get massive goosebumps watching that replay even though I fully know the outcome. Matter fact, im gonna watch it again now!
edit with link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLo2NcBdKNI
I love F1.
The bitch-goddess that she is.
The bitch-goddess that she is.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.