Credit where credit's due

Sir,

The success of Lewis Hamilton has given rise to some letters suggesting a considerable lack of objectivity. Last season we saw the rise of an exceptional talent in Hamilton, whether he was in one of the top cars or not. He demonstrated an amazing ability to gain a front row grid position, and to mix it with other drivers of greater experience in cars of equal performance and come out on top. The statement that “the right man won” (Letters, January) shows a lack of appreciation of Hamilton as a driver.

The idea of another writer that wins and not points should be the deciding factor in championships is ridiculous. Maybe the writer wasn’t around in 1958 when Mike Hawthorn won the Formula 1 Championship with one win and seven second places, with the greatest all-round driver ever Stirling Moss one point behind, but with four wins. Moss’s unselfishness was the reason Hawthorn won that year: his testimony to the fact that Mike had pushed his car on the pavement and not the track reversed Mike’s disqualification in Portugal and allowed the Ferrari driver to win the championship.

What would the writer do with different drivers winning each race? Second places would then have to be counted, along with all the other places down to eighth.

Enough from the biased folk who support another driver or another make of car; Hamilton is a great driver with a great future. All we can hope is that Mosley and Ecclestone keep their fingers out of the Formula 1 pie, or it’s going to get more boring than it already is. For myself, I would like to see the drivers in Maserati 250Fs and Lancias – then we would at least see them at work, rather than a glimpse of shiny helmets in high-speed roller skates.

David Holmes, Duncan, British Columbia, Canada