Originally Posted by
npham
What doesn't put him in the same category as Senna/Fangio/Clark/etc.? He has a bunch of stats over those guys already. Even the ones where he's beat, there's something to be said about longevity. Fangio has by far the best winning percentage off all time - no debate there. But a guy doing it for nearly 200 races more, has the 4th best percentage (Schumacher is 5th), counts for something. Hamilton also hasn't had the true luxury of having a proper #2 driver like Schumacher did either. He got some gifts from Bottas, but Niko didn't give him anything nor did Alonso, Button, etc. compared to what Schumacher had.
They were all respectively the best of their generation, but because he raced for McLaren and Mercedes that makes his stats invalid? I just don't get this logic. It's hard to compare over generations, but saying he isn't on the top tier with Fangio/Senna/Clark, all time is ridiculous.