[axegon_]

As I said, all of them have immense talent, but apart from the Red Bull-Vettel dominance era, Hamilton has always been in the best car and he was initially pushed forward by Ron Dennis of all people. I honestly can't think of anyone in F1 history who can say they were at all times backed up by people like Dennis, Fry, Lacey, Hakkinen, Wolff, Lauda from their first day in F1... No one comes even close to that. He's had it incredibly easy in F1.

[bsanr2]

Maybe he was just good enough, young enough, to get people behind him? What is with this insistence on stripping him of his agency in his success? Are people threatened by it?

[axegon_]

At the end of the day life isn't fair. That's said, if you look at last year's season when Ferrari had a more decent car (far worse thank Mercedes still), Leclerc with all his lack of experience and poor judgement at times, slaughtered Hamilton in qualifying. That genuinely makes me question if Hamilton's success isn't largely a consequence of Merc's well known superiority. On that topic, I think even Bottas has all the qualities and skills to beat Hamilton but he is mentally losing the battle. Imagine if Hamilton had to face someone like Leclerc, Vettel, Sainz, Russel, or even Raikkonen despite his age or even Riccardo or Hulkenberg. If you look at the biography of each one of those, they had it considerably more difficult than Hamilton.

[bsanr2]

They said the same thing when Maria Sharapova beat Serena Williams.

[mft_]

> That's said, if you look at last year's season when Ferrari had a more decent car (far worse thank Mercedes still)

If you follow F1, you'll know that there are far more variables than this:

1. The cars perform differently at different tracks, due to their fundamental design

2. The setup is often a balance of qualifying pace and race pace, and teams may approach this differently

3. The cars are constantly developed during the season (with improvements are somewhat unpredictable) meaning the balance of power in a season can shift

.

> Leclerc with all his lack of experience and poor judgement at times, slaughtered Hamilton in qualifying.

Not sure that 7 vs. 5 pole positions is "slaughtered". Over the season, LH comfortably out-qualified everyone [1], and of course comfortably out-raced them as well [2].

[1] https://www.racefans.net/2019-f1-season/2019-f1-statistics/2...

[2] https://www.racefans.net/2019-f1-season/2019-f1-statistics/2...

.

> That genuinely makes me question if Hamilton's success isn't largely a consequence of Merc's well known superiority. On that topic, I think even Bottas has all the qualities and skills to beat Hamilton but he is mentally losing the battle. Imagine if Hamilton had to face someone like Leclerc, Vettel, Sainz, Russel, or even Raikkonen despite his age or even Riccardo or Hulkenberg. If you look at the biography of each one of those, they had it considerably more difficult than Hamilton.

We're so far apart on this, it's probably not worth continuing much further. But I strongly agree with the other person who replied to you: Hamilton hasn't "had it easy" - he's put himself in strong positions (McLaren, then Mercedes) and has been supported by strong people (Dennis, Lauda, Wolff, etc.) because he's seen as the best overall driver on the grid (qualifying, racing, speed, tyre management, racing temperament, developing and setting up a car, adaptability to different cars & driving styles, etc.). During Hamilton's time, probably only Alonso (IMO) comes as close as such a complete package.

Ultimately, F1 is a dog-eat-dog world. If Hamilton didn't make himself valuable to his team bosses through his performances --didn't make it totally in their interest to continue to employ him-- they'd drop him and move on to someone else. So ultimately, either you're saying that multiple smart successful team bosses are wrong... or maybe Hamilton really is that good.