Worst WDC Ever

Worst in my time as a F1 fan - Michael in 94. Illegal car, illegal fuel rig, beat a team in disarray and still had to turf Damon off in Adelaide to get it done.

My least favorite WDC for a single season was Schumacher in 2004. Ferrari were miles ahead of everyone else and didn't let their drivers have a fair fight for the title. I understand it after Schumacher led them from the wilderness, but I still don't like it because it was dull.

Would it have been a straight 2 way fight anyway?

I mean look at the next year....Schumacher 3rd, Rubens 8th. It was always no contest between those two unless.Rubens was on it a particular weekend.

The thread is about the worst champion ever, not a single championship campaign. As such, Schumacher, for example gets only one entry. So stop saying things like "Schumacher 94", "Alonso 2005"

Erm... People go round in circules about 200* or at best 199* titles.

Let me propose something else. What about Piquet in 1987 or Prost in 1989? I mean many proposed "weak WDC's" here were actually won as a result of a close battle with other drivers and you can hardly claim the rival driver was much superior, if at all. Hill in 1996 won, but you can hardly claim Villeneuve was better - Hill won fair and square.

But my point about 1987 and 1989. Mansell and Senna were significantly faster than their team-mates. But they both lost out due to appaling reliability. So to me those two WDC's were unimpressive, also won in cars that were class of the field so in addition to a team-mate, whose car broke down all the time, there were no rivals. It would have been like if in 2004 Schumacher retired from half of the races and Barrichello would be WDC. Now that you could call a "weak WDC" if you wanted. Not Schumacher's WDC like some say here, who beat all fair and square.

And what about 1961? Ferrari was class of the field, von Trips got killed and as a result Phil Hill won. Arguably the very best drivers of that time, Moss and Co, were all in inferior cars.

Edited by sopa, 13 December 2012 - 08:47.

This. And I'm a British citizen!

Yeah, but which national football team do you support ?

By that criteria, why is Vettel not on your list? Too German perhaps?...

No. Vettel has won without a dominant car. And I have no affection for Germans.

So on the basis of having superior cars, can we also include
Senna 1988
Prost 1990, 1993
Schumacher 2001, 2002, 2004
Vettel 2011
For superior cars Schumacher 2004 easily has to be counted as just as much an advantage as Mansell had.




I would choose 1994 as the worst, a win at all costs attitude that covered cheating by the team and ended with Schumacher taking out Hill to prevent Hill winning after Schumacher had broken his car. Although for "a monkey could have been WDC in that car" it has to be Schumacher in 2004.

Do you understand what's the idea of this topic? "The worst world champion." Those names that you dropped there have won other titles than those listed. In addition, like said before, Senna and Prost had each others as their teammates and still won the title.

Edited by Puhoon, 13 December 2012 - 10:12.

i dont have any personall opinion on this because i think its pointless and you could literally find or create a reason why every single wdc was the worst or invalid in some way, as an example doesnt the logic displayed in this thread put all three of vettels championships as the worst.

2010 - illegal car - flexi wings ( going by the fact that schumachers car was apparently illegal in 94 as already said in this thread, yet obviously passed scrutineering)
2011 - dominant car so worthless
2012 - illegal car - hole in floor (maybe engine maps too)

Its really cold where i am justnow so i'm hoping this thread can keep me warm

Edited by Zuban, 13 December 2012 - 11:14.

Overall, Alonso is the worst driver to become champion.... simply because since he has become champion.... he got involved with Spygate, Crashgate, GermanyGate, FlagGate, Leave the SpaceGate, SamuraiGate, His-Car-is-better-than-mineGate.... and still continue to lose with all those added benefits in a Ferrari car to a relative Kid.

+10000000

My criteria is a driver who has won a WDC when they have a superior car, but hasn't been a championship contender otherwise. Hence my suggesting Jenson Button, as he didn't do a great deal before 2009 and hasn't done a lot since IMO. He was a very distant second in the WDC in 2011, 122 points behind Vettel thats almost 5 race wins in points terms and was never a contender.
Arguably the next least deserving WDC would be Vettel given the dominance of Redbull, but he fought hard and earned his first WDC in 2010. Even though the 2010 Redbull might have been quickest it wasn't the most reliable and he had to beat his team mate.

Just righting the wrongs of Spa really.

Not quite - Hamilton lost only 4 points to Massa's 10.

My criteria is a driver who has won a WDC when they have a superior car, but hasn't been a championship contender otherwise. Hence my suggesting Jenson Button, as he didn't do a great deal before 2009 and hasn't done a lot since IMO. He was a very distant second in the WDC in 2011, 122 points behind Vettel thats almost 5 race wins in points terms and was never a contender.
Arguably the next least deserving WDC would be Vettel given the dominance of Redbull, but he fought hard and earned his first WDC in 2010. Even though the 2010 Redbull might have been quickest it wasn't the most reliable and he had to beat his team mate.

right so buttons was rubbish because in 2011 he was 2nd behind vettel, and then you go on to say arguably vettel due to his dominant car... 2011 being by far the most dominant year... join the dots anyone? lol this is what i mean about finding/creating reasons.

Just righting the wrongs of Spa really.

Which only mattered because Massa's engine went in Hungary

1992.
Piquet was retired, Prost was out, Patrese terribly underperformed, Senna was stuck a sluggish unreliable McLaren, Ferrari were a non-factor, Schumacher was a rookie and Benetton was still far from the top and the FW14B was a year ahead of anything else.
But a WDC is a WDC and they are all terrific achievements.

Edited by Atreiu, 13 December 2012 - 12:18.

Just righting the wrongs of Spa really.

For me there was nothing wrong at Spa. But even if you insist, then Hamilton won in Monaco due to that he punctured after his own fault and was extremely lucky with circumstances that day.

As I have mentioned in other thread, I find Hamilton's title in 2008 very very lucky, the luckiest by far of all I have seen in F1. And in fact, I think Hamilton didn't have a good season then. It pretty much fits to the description of what can I call as the worst WDC season. Plenty of poor showing like Bahrain, Canada, France etc. And I admit that Hamilton deserves WDC for his career, but he didn't deserve title in 2008 IMO. I rate Massa's 2008 season higher than Hamilton's despite the fact top3 performers that year were for me Alonso, Kubica and Vettel with significant margin over the rest of the grid.

Worst in my time as a F1 fan - Michael in 94. Illegal car, illegal fuel rig, beat a team in disarray and still had to turf Damon off in Adelaide to get it done.

The FIA had to fix it by banning MS for 2 races and Disqualifying him from others just to stop him winning it in August

Hill.
His own team was so impressed by him that even winning the WDC didnt change Frank´s decision to get rid of him.
I´m convinced that had it been Schumacher driving those Williamses he´d be champion in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996.

Rarely seen so little use of a dominant car.

His subsequent carreer at Arrows and Jordan also paints the picture of a driver who, although having a decent race once in a while, did not have the ability to perform to the max for a season.
Apart from that he was downright clumsy and made very silly errors that would´ve landed him penalties these days, take Monza or Silverstone 1995 or Imola in 1999.

Edited by Martijn, 13 December 2012 - 15:27.

Apologies to any Americans, but by far the luckiest, most untalented, error-prone, uncharismatic and dour World Champion is the one who had to resort to ramming teammates off the track and only then inherited the championship at Monza following a fatal accident. Furthermore, his career dwindled afterwards to such an extent that he was forced to take a job as a private investigator. I refer of course to Pete Aron.

Yeah, but which national football team do you support ?

England

Apologies to any Americans, but by far the luckiest, most untalented, error-prone, uncharismatic and dour World Champion is the one who had to resort to ramming teammates off the track and only then inherited the championship at Monza following a fatal accident. Furthermore, his career dwindled afterwards to such an extent that he was forced to take a job as a private investigator. I refer of course to Pete Aron.

Good one.

Hill.
His own team was so impressed by him that even winning the WDC didnt change Frank´s decision to get rid of him.
I´m convinced that had it been Schumacher driving those Williamses he´d be champion in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996.

Rarely seen so little use of a dominant car.

His subsequent carreer at Arrows and Jordan also paints the picture of a driver who, although having a decent race once in a while, did not have the ability to perform to the max for a season.
Apart from that he was downright clumsy and made very silly errors that would´ve landed him penalties these days, take Monza or Silverstone 1995 or Imola in 1999.

'Williams also admitted that the team had erred in its controversial axing of Damon Hill after the Englishman won the World Championship in 1996 in favour of Heinz-Harald Frentzen. "It was a mistake," Williams owned up. "We thought we could find a better driver, but it was a mistake."'

Q&A in F1 Racing Magazine, 2008

Nelson Piquet, 3 times ;)

I dont believe in undeserving champions, but the won who 'least' deserves it has to be Kimi Raikkonen. The reasons dont need going over, but he won by default as McLaren lost it all/had it all taken away.

Next up Villeneuve in 97. Nowhere once he was out of the best car. Won no more races following his world title, and was outperformed by Button who is mentioned here. If Hill had been his team mate in 97. I think it would have been Damons title.

As for Hill? Cant agree with that, sorry. He should have been WDC in 1994, HHF who was highly rated was nowhere at all when brough into replace him. Then nearly won a race in an Arrows in 97, only the crulest luck defeated him on the last lap. That takes something special. In 98 he handed Jordan a first win which OK came by default in the end, but he was very competative all weekend and was competing at the front from the start on merit. He may not have been blessed with the most talent ever, but its unfair and an injustice to include him here in my book.

I dont believe in undeserving champions, but the won who 'least' deserves it has to be Kimi Raikkonen. The reasons dont need going over, but he won by default as McLaren lost it all/had it all taken away.

Next up Villeneuve in 97. Nowhere once he was out of the best car. Won no more races following his world title, and was outperformed by Button who is mentioned here. If Hill had been his team mate in 97. I think it would have been Damons title.

As for Hill? Cant agree with that, sorry. He should have been WDC in 1994, HHF who was highly rated was nowhere at all when brough into replace him. Then nearly won a race in an Arrows in 97, only the crulest luck defeated him on the last lap. That takes something special. In 98 he handed Jordan a first win which OK came by default in the end, but he was very competative all weekend and was competing at the front from the start on merit. He may not have been blessed with the most talent ever, but its unfair and an injustice to include him here in my book.

The guy who lost 2003 and 2005 because of McLaren?

Here's an interesting topic I've been considering for a while - who, in the Board's opinion, is the worst World Champion of all time?

Not attempting to start a flame thread here, or to belittle the achievements of any driver; clearly it requires uncommon skill and dedication to become a World Champion, but there are some who were less worthy of the title than others, and I am interested in who people believe as the least deserving of this accolade.

For me, it has to be Damon Hill. Clearly he was a great driver and well worthy of his WDC (especially considering he was in his thirties and perhaps already past his peak when he first got a top drive) but I feel that with the opportunities he had, he really should have done better. Arguably he had the car to beat four years on the spin from 1993-1996. I see Hill as not much better than Webber is today - a top bloke and strong driver who on his day can be the best in the world, but a great WDC? Probably not.

What do you guys think?

Nobody can be less worthy of the title because it is not an individual driver's title. It is a team title. Any group that wins it totally absolutely deserves it. We are placing way too much importance on drivers.

I dont believe in undeserving champions, but the won who 'least' deserves it has to be Kimi Raikkonen. The reasons dont need going over, but he won by default as McLaren lost it all/had it all taken away.

what exactly do you mean?!
what happened to Mclaren exactly? pls explain.

I hear this excuse so damn often, but no one actually wants to tell us what happened to Team Mclaren that made them lose it.
Raikkonen had 3 non-podium finishes, monaco, canada, usa, (in that order with no races in between), in addition he had 2 technical dnf's, (one happening while in P3)
he also won 2 more races than hamilton/alonso

on the other hand hamilton had 4 non-podium finishes, 1 was aided by the problem in brazil, NO dnf's due to reliability.

there is NOTHING that suggests Mclaren overall performance suddenly crumbled to near nothingness.(as you all make it sound)
they still won just as much races in the second half of the season as they did in the first half, 2 for alonso and 2 for hamilton.

2007 was even a more successful season than 2008 if we ignore the WDC table and just look at the points earned, more points earned in less races... if that was achieved by a mclaren/hamilton at a severe disadvantage over half a season then one must wonder why they did even worse the following years...

but it's bullshît, that "mclaren struggle" excuse is just that, an excuse.
They had an almost even campaign, differences are that Kimi won 2 more races than either of the two mclarens but also had 2 dnf's more than them, which made it very close overall.
People look at the last two races and how that made all the difference, yet we had 15 races before that as well... swap the results from the last two races with the first two and we would have the same end result with a lot less drama...
just like 2010 and ferraris mistake in abu dhabi.

what exactly do you mean?!
what happened to Mclaren exactly? pls explain.

I hear this excuse so damn often, but no one actually wants to tell us what happened to Team Mclaren that made them lose it.
Raikkonen had 3 non-podium finishes, monaco, canada, usa, (in that order with no races in between), in addition he had 2 technical dnf's, (one happening while in P3)
he also won 2 more races than hamilton/alonso

on the other hand hamilton had 4 non-podium finishes, 1 was aided by the problem in brazil, NO dnf's due to reliability.

there is NOTHING that suggests Mclaren overall performance suddenly crumbled to near nothingness.(as you all make it sound)
they still won just as much races in the second half of the season as they did in the first half, 2 for alonso and 2 for hamilton.

2007 was even a more successful season than 2008 if we ignore the WDC table and just look at the points earned, more points earned in less races... if that was achieved by a mclaren/hamilton at a severe disadvantage over half a season then one must wonder why they did even worse the following years...

but it's bullshît, that "mclaren struggle" excuse is just that, an excuse.
They had an almost even campaign, differences are that Kimi won 2 more races than either of the two mclarens but also had 2 dnf's more than them, which made it very close overall.
People look at the last two races and how that made all the difference, yet we had 15 races before that as well... swap the results from the last two races with the first two and we would have the same end result with a lot less drama...
just like 2010 and ferraris mistake in abu dhabi.

Nice post But there's no point trying to convince them otherwise. This forum is full of Hamilton fans.

People look at the last two races and how that made all the difference, yet we had 15 races before that as well... swap the results from the last two races with the first two and we would have the same end result with a lot less drama...

Or let´s make Spain, Europe and Japan (tyre gamble ) the last three GP. I doubt these people will be still shortsighted and say that "Räikkönen almost lost ANOTHER WDC that he had in the bag down to extreme bad luck."

Sure then they can look at the big picture

I dont believe in undeserving champions, but the won who 'least' deserves it has to be Kimi Raikkonen. The reasons dont need going over, but he won by default as McLaren lost it all/had it all taken away.

Next up Villeneuve in 97. Nowhere once he was out of the best car. Won no more races following his world title, and was outperformed by Button who is mentioned here. If Hill had been his team mate in 97. I think it would have been Damons title.

As for Hill? Cant agree with that, sorry. He should have been WDC in 1994, HHF who was highly rated was nowhere at all when brough into replace him. Then nearly won a race in an Arrows in 97, only the crulest luck defeated him on the last lap. That takes something special. In 98 he handed Jordan a first win which OK came by default in the end, but he was very competative all weekend and was competing at the front from the start on merit. He may not have been blessed with the most talent ever, but its unfair and an injustice to include him here in my book.

THe only reason Hill would have been champion in 1994 is because of the famous race bans MS got that year. On track he wouldn't have even been close. Also with a bit more brains he could have gone around the benetton in adelaide with no drama. His win with Jordan is great but his team mate was all over his back so he could have also won it if not for hold station orders. His 1997 hungaroring performance was most impressive, I'll give him that. To put him near Raikkonen in any comparison is a bit of a joke. Hill was a nice guy and a decent racer but that's about it. Raikkonen won in a Lotus this year....surely that must also be impressive...

As for the thread....it's pretty ok. If you can have tops of best WDCs surely you can also call somebody the worst WDC.
Unfortunately my full F1 knowledge starts in the early 90s so I can't comment on the WDCs before that. From these years I would go for Jacques who almost lost that title in a rocketship Williams Renault

1982 comes to mind, becoming WDC with only one win, while the Ferrari-drivers were out of the game.

Nice post But there's no point trying to convince them otherwise. This forum is full of Hamilton fans.

Huh, wtf man i'm a Kimi and Hamilton fan. Why generalize groups of people cause you don't agree with one dude ?

Top 5 weakest WDCs:
Rosberg. There's little disagreement that Piquet, Prost, Villeneuve, and Lauda were all much better drivers than he was, and Pironi, Reutemann, Watson, and Arnoux additionally all probably had a better shot at the title than he, but tragedy, unreliability, politics, and chaos eliminated or took massive points away from all those guys and Rosberg got lucky. Pironi missed 6 races and Rosberg barely overtook his points total. WDC with 1 win, while 5 drivers had more, is pretty weak.

Hawthorn. Moss had 4 wins, Brooks had 3, Hawthorn had 1. Hawthorn finished ahead of each of them on the track a single time. There's something wrong with that points system, if you ask me (which included Hawthorn getting 5 points for fastest laps).

Hunt. If a part of Lauda's suspension hadn't broken, Hunt would never have been even close to the title. Lauda was out or injured for 7 of the 16 races (one of which he voluntarily pulled out of) and Hunt still only just got the title by 1 point. Hunt was not in the same league as Lauda, but unlike Rosberg, at least he managed to beat everyone else and scored 6 wins.

Phil Hill. I love Phil Hill. He's one of my heroes. I hate to sound like I'm saying anything bad about him, but I think if you had a race of the 32 WDCs in equal cars, he'd be near the back. But it's some of the very reasons I love him that I think he'd be there. He wasn't the super-competitive, driven-to-beat-the-competition, will-do-whatever-it-takes kind of driver, like many of the others.

Damon Hill. I think there were plenty of drivers in the field that would have done better with his circumstances. With guys like Clark and Schumacher, I feel like they rarely or never had equipment that was as good as they were. With Hill, I feel like his car was always much better than he was.

Top 5 weakest WDCs:
Rosberg. There's little disagreement that Piquet, Prost, Villeneuve, and Lauda were all much better drivers than he was, and Pironi, Reutemann, Watson, and Arnoux additionally all probably had a better shot at the title than he, but tragedy, unreliability, politics, and chaos eliminated or took massive points away from all those guys and Rosberg got lucky. Pironi missed 6 races and Rosberg barely overtook his points total. WDC with 1 win, while 5 drivers had more, is pretty weak.

Hawthorn. Moss had 4 wins, Brooks had 3, Hawthorn had 1. Hawthorn finished ahead of each of them on the track a single time. There's something wrong with that points system, if you ask me (which included Hawthorn getting 5 points for fastest laps).

Hunt. If a part of Lauda's suspension hadn't broken, Hunt would never have been even close to the title. Lauda was out or injured for 7 of the 16 races (one of which he voluntarily pulled out of) and Hunt still only just got the title by 1 point. Hunt was not in the same league as Lauda, but unlike Rosberg, at least he managed to beat everyone else and scored 6 wins.

Phil Hill. I love Phil Hill. He's one of my heroes. I hate to sound like I'm saying anything bad about him, but I think if you had a race of the 32 WDCs in equal cars, he'd be near the back. But it's some of the very reasons I love him that I think he'd be there. He wasn't the super-competitive, driven-to-beat-the-competition, will-do-whatever-it-takes kind of driver, like many of the others.

Damon Hill. I think there were plenty of drivers in the field that would have done better with his circumstances. With guys like Clark and Schumacher, I feel like they rarely or never had equipment that was as good as they were. With Hill, I feel like his car was always much better than he was.

Good post. I'd say this makes a very strong case for Rosberg being the 'weakest' WDC.

If the topic is meant to ask which of the 32 champions is/was overall the worst driver, I would have to say Villeneuve, followed by Hunt.

If the question is asking what the worst/most undeservedf WDC campaign was, I would say (and keep in mind that no WDC campaign is really "bad"

Hunt in 1976, as he likely wouldn't have won if Niki didn't have his accident.
Rosberg in 1982, one of the two Ferrari drivers likely wouldn't have won if tragedy had not struck them both.
Hakkinen in 1999, once Schumacher broke his leg he looked to have it in the bag, but he nearly let Eddie Irvine of all people take it from him.
Schumacher in 2003, the Bridgestones weren't very good in the European heat wave but he also made several errors that year, such as the first lap accident in Malaysia or having a bit of a shocker at Suzuka.
Perhaps Button in 2009, he looked very ordinary in the second half of the season (but was great in the first).

Going back to Villeneuve, I was only 7 at the time, but after the 2000 season, where BAR had vastly improved and Villeneuve himself had a great year, he was still regarded as one of the top drivers in F1, was he not? By the end of the 2003 season, the 32 year old's career looked to be out of gas.

I always find it amazing how in a couple of years, his reputation managed to plummet from being a great driver in a midfield car (a la Alonso 2009) to a has-been who was only depriving better, younger drivers of a drive (a la Hill 1999). At least in Damon's case, he had age as an excuse, but age-wise Jacques should have been at his peak in the early 2000's.

Edited by PorcupineTroy, 13 December 2012 - 20:32.

Not quite - Hamilton lost only 4 points to Massa's 10.

Hardly, Massa lost his points through the incompetence of Ferrari's pit crew. He didn't need Piquet to crash to drive off with the fuel hose still attached.

I always find it amazing how in a couple of years, his reputation managed to plummet from being a great driver in a midfield car (a la Alonso 2009) to a has-been who was only depriving better, younger drivers of a drive (a la Hill 1999).

Perhaps those, who claim that after the 2001 Australian shunt Villeneuve was never the same again, have a point.
Alternatively Zonta never was much of a yardstick, which made Villeneuve look good. But Panis came in and gave him a run for his money. It is often said Button ended JV's career, but I remember, when Panis joined BAR, it was quickly claimed that the Frenchman looked even better than the Canadian. Actually I also remember Frentzen matching Villeneuve in 1998 after settling in the team.

Never mind. I think Villeneuve was a very good driver. But in 1997, 1999-200 flattered by underperforming team-mates. In other seasons he had strongly performing team-mates, who could compete against him.

As for 1999, I see it the other way around, PorcupineTroy, even though I agree it was not ammong the strongest WDC campaings.

Nothing more could have happened to Hakkinen except getting hurt and missing races, yet Irvine, the worse EVER driver I have seen at a top WDC/WCC challenging team, failed miserably simply because he was horrible. Even after Schumacher was out, there were days he made the Ferrari look like a pig.

Hakkinen's only mistakes were the two crashes from race leads. Other than that he was usually so far ahead of Irvine in races that I am stunned it even got close in points. Probably again shows that in addition to speed you need reliability, team work, luck, consistency as well.

1992.
Piquet was retired, Prost was out, Patrese terribly underperformed, Senna was stuck a sluggish unreliable McLaren, Ferrari were a non-factor, Schumacher was a rookie and Benetton was still far from the top and the FW14B was a year ahead of anything else.
But a WDC is a WDC and they are all terrific achievements.

Sorry, but Mansell hardly put a foot wrong that season, as far as I remember. He was 1st or 2nd in every race that he didn't retire out of, and of those dnf's, three were mechanical failure. He won the WDC at the halfway point of the season. It's simply not his fault that everybody else dropped the ball, or that he had the most dominant car ever in a season.

This thread appears to be about the least talented world champions, not the least impressive world championship winning seasons. If it was the later you'd consider for example Prost's 89 and 93 seasons, yet you'd be mad to consider him one of the least talented champions because he was immense in the mid-80s.

My choices for the bottom top 5 would be Damon Hill, Mike Hawthorn, Phil Hill, Denny Hulme and Jenson Button. All were clearly inferior in talent to several other contemporary drivers (though my knowledge on the eras Hawthorn, P.Hill and Hulme driven in isn't great and I may be slightly mistaken).

Jody Scheckter perhaps is worth a mention too but he saw off some great drivers in the mid-70s with those Tyrrells, and had a fantastic season in the Wolf I believe. Keke Rosberg again is often mentioned because he driven in an era where there were many other champions, but whilst his 82 win was definitely bizarre, I think he was as good as anyone that year and kept up in 83 and 84, fantastic form right there. Then James Hunt I can't understand at all, yeah he inherited his actual title from Lauda, but at a point both him and Lauda were on an entirely different class from the rest of the field, in both pace and consistency. Hunt had 3 seasons or so he was clearly better than anyone bar Lauda and even there that wasn't always clear cut.

Kimi Raikkonen is yet another guy who comes up because his title season wasn't his best season, even as a fan I'll totally agree that wasn't a great year, but now consider his McLaren years and it becomes total nonsense to rank him lower than the likes of Hill and Button... he killed Montoya's career ffs. Even now he's still at the top, he's been there for many years, you can't really say that for many of the drivers mentioned.

Nigel Mansell is even bigger nonsense, yeah Prost beat him as a team-mate, Piquet (barely) to a title too, but the guy won a massive amount of races, and would have been considered to be a top 3/top 4 driver every single year from mid-85 to his retirement as champion in 92. Even 92 I consider a impressive season, he might have had a monster of a car but certainly made the absolute most of it, for example Prost with a similarly dominant car the following year looked a lot less convincing.

Jacques Villeneuve would've been thereabouts near my bottom 5, but he did stay at the top for a while, I'd name him as a top 3 driver for about 97 to 2001. It's a shame most of that came in shitboxes, his fault for taking the BAR money though. I also rate him higher than Damon Hill because he ran Hill very very close in his rookie season, and destroyed Frentzen in his title year.

As for a controversial call I'm a bit surprised nobody's mentioned Mario Andretti, his 78 season is often called into question due to team orders benefitting him vs Peterson. I actually have an opposite view from the norm on that however, Mario was the quickest over the season and the team order occasions have been exaggerated. Mario despite his fabulous, legendary overall motorsport record wasn't actually that fantastic a F1 driver though, considering his whole F1 career. Hence he'd be near my bottom 5 too.

To the core of the thread, I do agree it's a somewhat pointless question. Every single one of the champions in history were clearly talented drivers. Some more so than the others of course, yet all were above average in F1 absolutely. And it's not a "nice" question. However, just to be a dick and add another snipe, had the '99 season gone a little different Eddie Irvine would've won this thread unanimously!

noikeee, I wanted to ask one thing.

You mention that Hunt, Raikkonen, Villeneuve, Mansell, etc were all considered as top 3/4 drivers on the grid in their primes and that's why they are not among "worst champions". But wasn't Hill a top3 driver in 1994-96 as well?

noikeee, I wanted to ask one thing.

You mention that Hunt, Raikkonen, Villeneuve, Mansell, etc were all considered as top 3/4 drivers on the grid in their primes and that's why they are not among "worst champions". But wasn't Hill a top3 driver in 1994-96 as well?

the same way barichello was considered top 3/4 drivers on the grid. hill had these following things going with him

1.family name
2.williams car
3.clear lack of a no.1 driver at williams, but if we take the car away, hill wasn't impressive, he was more impressive as a driver and racer in his Jordan stint.

noikeee, I wanted to ask one thing.

You mention that Hunt, Raikkonen, Villeneuve, Mansell, etc were all considered as top 3/4 drivers on the grid in their primes and that's why they are not among "worst champions". But wasn't Hill a top3 driver in 1994-96 as well?

Perhaps, but more by a sudden absence of the previous strong generation of drivers than anything.. for example the early qualifying gaps of Senna vs D.Hill were ridiculous and rather embarrassing, unfortunately that only lasted 3 race weekends as we all know what happened to Ayrton... At the same time Prost and Mansell had both retired so we were left with a complete void of top talent bar Schumacher, the only convincing guy of the new lot.

It was also very clear Schumacher at that point was much much better than D.Hill (and all the other drivers on the grid for that matter), whereas you couldn't say the same for those other drivers at their peaks.

Perhaps, but more by a sudden absence of the previous strong generation of drivers than anything.. for example the early qualifying gaps of Senna vs D.Hill were ridiculous and rather embarrassing,

Brazil qualifying might have been embarrassing, but as we know the car was critical and unforgiving to drive...and it´s also not like Prost never got outqualified by over second in 88 or 89 (in 89 he was 10 out of 16 times ~1second or more slower than Senna)

The gaps in the two following GPs (5 tenths resp. 6 tenths) were quite "normal" gaps for that time in F1.

Edited by LiJu914, 14 December 2012 - 13:33.

Huh, wtf man i'm a Kimi and Hamilton fan. Why generalize groups of people cause you don't agree with one dude ?

I don't generalize groups. I just said that this forum is full of Hamilton fans. Some, like he did, fail to see Räikkönen's championship in 2007 a worthy one, just because it's their own golden boy who lost it.

Brazil qualifying might have been embarrassing, but as we know the car was critical and unforgiving to drive...and it´s also not like Prost never got outqualified by over second in 88 or 89 (in 89 he was 10 out of 16 times ~1second or more slower than Senna)

The gaps in the two following GPs (5 tenths resp. 6 tenths) were quite "normal" gaps for that time in F1.

Yeah but what I remember at the time was that Senna continued his huge dominance over Hill in the race (the Brazil race.. unfortunately he didn't get to do the same at Aida or Imola) - not what Prost would've done, and the Prost we saw vs Senna I believe was starting to go past his peak.

My opinion on Hill isn't based just on 3 race weekends though.. the continuous cock-ups he made in the 95 season certainly made an impression on me. Or barely beating a rookie in 96. Or failing to win 94 despite a Williams that to me seemed quicker than the Benetton, with Schumacher sidelined for 2 races and DQd from another.

He was still a very good driver, all of the champions were. He had great days, I remember Japan 95(?) in the rain, or THAT race with the Arrows in the Hungaroring. He hassled Prost midseason in 93, he just about beat decent team-mates in Coulthard and Villeneuve (albeit with the benefit of experience), and was put unexpectedly in a difficult position suddenly leading the team after the death of Senna. Put him against all the other champions though and I find it difficult to rate him against them.

Yeah but what I remember at the time was that Senna continued his huge dominance over Hill in the race (the Brazil race.. unfortunately he didn't get to do the same at Aida or Imola) - not what Prost would've done, and the Prost we saw vs Senna I believe was starting to go past his peak.

Well at least Prost won 2 further WDCs despite "starting to go past his peak"...
And in 89 the performance gaps were often enough even pretty huge in the races (the biggest was probably in Mexico, when he was lapped).
I doubt Senna would´ve been dominating Hill so much in Aida and Imola as he did in Brazil. The best indidcator is, that Hill was a full second closer to Senna in Q at these weekends than in Brazil.
Furthermore his race strategy in Brazil was horrible. The car had huge problems with the bumps - going for a one-stopper (heavy car) made that problem even worse - and on top of that the tyres turned to be too soft to hold up their grip level for such a long stint and such a heavy car - so he couldn´t even improve his times with decreasing fuel....

Edited by LiJu914, 14 December 2012 - 16:21.

Based on this statics, JV is the worst WDC....

Edited by fullthrottle, 14 December 2012 - 14:49.

Button for me.

Sorry, but Mansell hardly put a foot wrong that season, as far as I remember. He was 1st or 2nd in every race that he didn't retire out of, and of those dnf's, three were mechanical failure. He won the WDC at the halfway point of the season. It's simply not his fault that everybody else dropped the ball, or that he had the most dominant car ever in a season.

Not his fault at all, he got the most of it.
But when the only possible oponent is a twilight underperforming Patrese, anyone could have put feet wrong here and there and still have won that WDC.

I'm not rating Mansell, by the way. But the WDC campaing and the season.

Edited by Atreiu, 14 December 2012 - 20:50.