Thank you for sharing this video with us, eMcL, as it is a perfect illustration of so-called "journalists" who are so stupid that they couldn't find their asses with both hands. The ignorance of the imbecile who wrote the narration for the piece is beyond belief.
Most of the "records" he cites relate to number of races and number of points. Does this clown not know that the points system was changed in 2010 so that since then the number of points available for a win has been 2½ times greater than before? From 1990 to 2009 the winner was awarded 10 points, and before 1990 only 9 points. In the 1950s the winner got just 8. This is not to mention that now they can get an extra point for fastest lap.
Furthermore, this season there will be 21 races. In the 1950s there were fewer than 10 races per season. Not only that but, until 1991, a driver did not even get credit in his annual points total for all his results: in some years it was only the 4 or 5 best results. Even in the 1980s they kept only their best 11 results.
Lewis Hamilton (and the others) came into this season with the potential to score 546 points. In 1966, a typical year, the number of points Clark (and the others) could have potentially scored was at the absolute most 45.
If some teenager wants to think that Lewis Hamilton was the greatest driver of all time, that is his right to do, but for goodness sake it would be nice if people posing as journalists had an idea of what they were talking about before they started creating internet content that innocent readers might be tempted to take seriously.