Jump to content


Photo

The 'worst' driver to win a World Championship?


  • Please log in to reply
127 replies to this topic

#101 Agnis

Agnis
  • Member

  • 352 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 12 January 2007 - 13:50

I think it's nothing wrong to call Phil Hill a worst of those 28 drivers who have won WDC. With all the respect to Phil, one has to be the last. Phil won his championship in a superior car when better drivers were struggling with British machinery. Moss' showings in Monaco and Ring were much more worthy than Hill's championship. Also I don't rate Alan Jones very high. Especially because of his whining after Brazil '81.

Advertisement

#102 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,780 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 12 January 2007 - 18:50

Originally posted by Agnis
I think it's nothing wrong to call Phil Hill a worst of those 28 drivers who have won WDC. With all the respect to Phil, one has to be the last. Phil won his championship in a superior car when better drivers were struggling with British machinery. Moss' showings in Monaco and Ring were much more worthy than Hill's championship. Also I don't rate Alan Jones very high. Especially because of his whining after Brazil '81.


I really wish Stuart would lock, delete, nuke, or do whatever to this thread. Comments like the above lend credence to HDonalds's request that it should be excised. I second the motion.

John

#103 LaRascasse

LaRascasse
  • Member

  • 51 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 12 January 2007 - 19:12

John, while I may disagree wholeheartedly with some of the comments made in this thread, are we to squash and silence all speech that we disagree with. That would make this forum a forum in name only.

#104 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,670 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 12 January 2007 - 22:34

Why don't they merge this and other such garbage threads into : "I am an opinionated arrogant arse, who can I trash today" thread?

#105 Allen Brown

Allen Brown
  • Member

  • 4,863 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 12 January 2007 - 23:34

Mr Capps is right. Take this away. It belongs in RC.

#106 BorderReiver

BorderReiver
  • Member

  • 9,938 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 13 January 2007 - 03:05

Originally posted by ensign14
Pete Aron. Quite apart from putting his much more talented team-mate out of action at Monaco, he fluked a win in Italy after Sarti died and Barlini pulled out, and had to rely on Stoddard missing half the season to nick it by a point. And after stopping Sarti from passing him at Brands by belching flames all over him.


:rotfl:

#107 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 13 January 2007 - 04:12

"If this story were to have a moral, then I would say, 'Just name a hero and I'll prove he's a bum.'"- Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, Baa Baa Black Sheep

#108 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,175 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 13 January 2007 - 10:16

Originally posted by Allen Brown
Mr Capps is right. Take this away. It belongs in RC.


You wouldn't find many posters in RC who knew who Phil Hill was, same with almost all the other great names in the pre-Schumacher era. The thread would degenerate into a slanging match over Benetton's illegal launch control or fuelling nozzle, or something similar, most threads there with any kind of 'historical' aspect tend to do that.

#109 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,175 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 13 January 2007 - 10:18

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
"If this story were to have a moral, then I would say, 'Just name a hero and I'll prove he's a bum.'"- Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, Baa Baa Black Sheep


Ah! Robert Conrad flying Corsairs!

#110 Jerome

Jerome
  • Member

  • 2,088 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 13 January 2007 - 11:09

Well, I think the 'least deserving driver to win the WC' would even be an unjust threattitle. I mean: there a lot of drivers I've known in the past who never even won a Grand Prix, but who would have deserved a topline car... not because they were better than the ones who did (I truly believe that if you are really good there, you'll get there), but just because life would be so wonderfull if erveryone would get a wonderfull chance.

Yes, Damon Hill got a wonderful chance with the Williams. As did Nigel Mansell. As did Phil Hill with the Ferrari, or Dennis Hulme with the McLaren. The only thing you can say is: was there another driver in that year, who should have had that ride that year?

To be clear, I'm against closing any thread so long there is no racial, sexual or life-threatening content. But if you ask me the the thread should have named more elegantly: 'Name the driver who should have that WC winning ride, that year.'

#111 Frank Verplanken

Frank Verplanken
  • Member

  • 343 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 13 January 2007 - 11:14

Originally posted by kayemod

Ah! Robert Conrad flying Corsairs!

I loved the show as a kid ! "Les TĂȘtes BrulĂ©es" as it was know in France :). Great cast, great stunts and archives, a mix of "MASH" and "Grand Prix" :D

#112 MattFoster

MattFoster
  • Member

  • 4,772 posts
  • Joined: May 00

Posted 13 January 2007 - 11:44

OMG is this steaming pile still growing???? :rolleyes:

#113 Spaceframe

Spaceframe
  • Member

  • 231 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 13 January 2007 - 17:21

It all depends on which variables are used.

If we look at pure talent, it might've been Graham Hil, who on the other hand was a very determined individual and hence made up for his - relative - lack of born talent.

If we base our judgement on the drivers' involvement in improving the car, Farina and Fangio would be at the bottom of the list - back then drivers more or less took what they were handed and made the best of it.

If sportsmanship comes into the equation, Mickey the Shoe would be dead-last, with Ayrton Senna right in front of him - Farina would be the only other candidate.

And then there are those drivers who had the - by far - best car of the season, like Fangio mostly had, and so did Alberto Ascari, Phil Hill, Jim Clark, Niki Lauda (1975), Mario Andretti, Alan Jones, Nelson Piquet (1987) Ayrton Senna (1988), Nigel Mansell and quite a number of the champions from recent years. But a number of them had the best car to a large extent because they contributed to its development - Andretti obviously played a very important part in developing the Lotus ad did Lauda at Ferrari and more recent Schumacher at Ferrari.

Finally there's the "he had problems dominating his team mate" theme - here we have Phil Hill, Nelson Piquet (1987), Alain Prost (1991) and Damon Hill as prime suspects.

#114 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,175 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 13 January 2007 - 18:27

Originally posted by Spaceframe

And then there are those drivers who had the - by far - best car of the season, like Fangio mostly had, and so did Alberto Ascari, Phil Hill, Jim Clark, Niki Lauda (1975), Mario Andretti, Alan Jones, Nelson Piquet (1987) Ayrton Senna (1988), Nigel Mansell and quite a number of the champions from recent years.


You can't criticise a driver for being lucky, or even 'lucky'. To take an example at random from the names most often mentioned here, Phil Hill 'lucked' into his WDC, by finding himself in the right car at the right time, but I don't see how anyone could blame him for that. We should ask ourselves though, what was the alternative? Leaving aside Sir Stirling and two of the greatest drives in the history of F1, would Taffy Von Tripps been a more worthy champion? I don't think so, and on that basis, how can Phil Hill be considered an 'unworthy' champion, who could be considered more 'worthy' in 1961? If Von Tripps had been champion in that year, I think he might have figured in threads like this in exactly the same way as Phil Hill is doing right now.

#115 Hank the Deuce

Hank the Deuce
  • Member

  • 271 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 14 January 2007 - 10:48

On what grounds does one proclaim a championship to be undeserved? Is there anything in the charter which states that a championship must be won against nigh-on insurmountable odds, or massive opposition, in a series of miraculous drives? While some of the more memorable championships may have been that way, as someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, the way that they're won is to finish the year with more points than anyone else.

The manner of execution depends a bit on the format (as witnessed in domestic touring car racing these past two years...), but the main reason people win championships is that they played the game by its rules, more effectively than the bloke who finished second... and everyone behind them too.

For mine, I could put down a name with the claim that I found them a less-than-deserving champion... but it'd be more because they didn't appeal to me as a person (and therefore hardly an authoritative or objective assessment) than because they hadn't done what they needed to do to claim the crown.

#116 Huw Jadvantich

Huw Jadvantich
  • Member

  • 602 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 14 January 2007 - 11:22

My own problem with championship winners is how much importance is put on the championship.
To me its races that need to be won, not championships. Championships are aborations which ruin races. Championships should just be an adjunct announced at an after dinner Christmas speech.
Whilst it is, or used to be, a measure of the most dominant package between January 1st and December 31st (with the exception of the Southern hemishere Series), the method of measuring it gets medalled with so often it isn't even a consistent monitor.
The sooner we get back to the person who won at Monaco, LeMans, Indy or Bathurst the better.
Winning championships is like an expensive game of chess. Winning a race is motor racing, or was until they started to have 'strategy', fuel stops, tyre stops, safety cars and the rest of the b------t.
I remember a good while ago on some thread on Atlas someone put forward a table whereby the people who had finished second, third or fourth in a championship in the years they were competitive. It seemed to make a lot more sense than the 'proper' results, and reflected the drivers who consistently performed at a very high level, rather than got lucky.

#117 Hugo Boecker

Hugo Boecker
  • Member

  • 689 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 14 January 2007 - 11:29

I've never seen the word "UNDESERVED" in the caption. It is said in a lost posts "A WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP IS A WOLRD CHAMPIONSHIP"
I think the question was something like this:
If you rate all WDC - Who is at the bottom of your list
This is the reverse question to Who is top of your list
Nothing more or less.
To be a Champ you have to be good and you must be at the right time at right place.
So P.Hill won his against his dead teammate and Surtees won with one point less Graham but they became champions well deserved.

#118 Spaceframe

Spaceframe
  • Member

  • 231 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 14 January 2007 - 21:57

Originally posted by kayemod


You can't criticise a driver for being lucky, or even 'lucky'. To take an example at random from the names most often mentioned here, Phil Hill 'lucked' into his WDC, by finding himself in the right car at the right time, but I don't see how anyone could blame him for that. We should ask ourselves though, what was the alternative? Leaving aside Sir Stirling and two of the greatest drives in the history of F1, would Taffy Von Tripps been a more worthy champion? I don't think so, and on that basis, how can Phil Hill be considered an 'unworthy' champion, who could be considered more 'worthy' in 1961? If Von Tripps had been champion in that year, I think he might have figured in threads like this in exactly the same way as Phil Hill is doing right now.

He probably would - the sharknose clearly outperformed everything in 1961. And it is also part of the package which creates a champion to seek out the right team for a given season - there's a flip side to any coin.

Please note that I also wrote:

"But a number of them had the best car to a large extent because they contributed to its development - Andretti obviously played a very important part in developing the Lotus as did Lauda at Ferrari and more recently Schumacher at Ferrari."

Yet another flip side - it's very difficult to "blame" a driver for winning a championship in the best car, when the driver did a lot of the hard work needed to make it the best car!

#119 ezequiel

ezequiel
  • Member

  • 877 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 14 January 2007 - 23:25

Originally posted by jk
Hi all Experts!

Now that we have had some pools about the best driver not to win a WC (Moss) and race (Amon), i would like to ask which driver you think is the less talented driver ever to win a WC after the war. I know you must be a very good driver indeed to win, but who was not in the class af Fangio, Clark etc.
I've come up with these:
Denny Hulme: Not that talented, but his great reliability gave him his WC. After that he never challenged.
James Hunt: He didn't do much except his WC, which he hadn't won if Lauda hasn't crashed.
Alan Jones: I don't know how good he was before his WC but his drive with the Beatrice Lola was not in WC class.
Sorry but; Damon Hill!: Hate to say this, but he was clearly a good driver, but not a great at all. The clearly best car gave him his WC.

Sorry if something is wrong.
What do you think?


I would add Keke Rosberg...and I`ve always thought Hulme is a bit underrated...

Advertisement

#120 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,330 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 15 January 2007 - 00:19

Originally posted by Allen Brown
Mr Capps is right. Take this away. It belongs in RC.


That's got my vote! DCN

(By the way - what is Arsie? It just sounds like the right place for all this - if a driver who won Le Mans three times, the Sebring 12-Hours three times, and the ADAC 1,000Kms and BA 1,000Kms a couple of times each, plus his F1 GPs and Lord knows what else, can be dismissed as being 'the worst' in any significant way then some people here really have got their heads up their RC... and need help to extract it) :mad:

#121 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,366 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 15 January 2007 - 00:34

Originally posted by Hugo Boecker
I've never seen the word "UNDESERVED" in the caption. It is said in a lost posts "A WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP IS A WOLRD CHAMPIONSHIP"
I think the question was something like this:
If you rate all WDC - Who is at the bottom of your list
This is the reverse question to Who is top of your list
Nothing more or less.
To be a Champ you have to be good and you must be at the right time at right place.
So P.Hill won his against his dead teammate and Surtees won with one point less Graham but they became champions well deserved.

And how about the nonsense you wrote about Phil Hill being just a lucky winner of the 1966 Nurburgring 1000km and the 1967 BOAC 6 hour race?

#122 Hugo Boecker

Hugo Boecker
  • Member

  • 689 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 15 January 2007 - 22:15

Originally posted by scheivlak

And how about the nonsense you wrote about Phil Hill being just a lucky winner of the 1966 Nurburgring 1000km and the 1967 BOAC 6 hour race?

Lucky only for the Ring not for Brands. But I messed it up with the 67 1000KM at the ring, when the far leading Mitter/Bianchi Porsche quit in the last lap. Sorry for that. It was bulls...

#123 Captain Vimes

Captain Vimes
  • New Member

  • 4 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 15 January 2007 - 22:41

Originally posted by Huw Jadvantich
My own problem with championship winners is how much importance is put on the championship.
To me its races that need to be won, not championships.
The sooner we get back to the person who won at Monaco, LeMans, Indy or Bathurst the better.
Winning championships is like an expensive game of chess. Winning a race is motor racing, or was until they started to have 'strategy', fuel stops, tyre stops, safety cars and the rest of the b------t.


I'm with you. In my ideal championship the champion would be the winner of the most races, period.

#124 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,330 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 15 January 2007 - 22:41

Well said Hugo.

DCN

#125 MPea3

MPea3
  • Member

  • 2,144 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 16 January 2007 - 21:17

There are two names that I've seen pop up repeatedly in this thread that really make me wonder if the opinions are based upon anything other than looking at stats.

I never saw Phil Hill race, but he seems to have earned the respect of his fellow racers, and his success, in a variety of cars over a number of years, leads me to believe his small number of GP wins is no reflection of his talent. In the only year in which he had a legitimate chance at the championship, he came through and won it. To somehow classify him as the 'worst", even if in innocent terms, is an insult to not only him, but to the sport and the era in which he drove.

The 2nd is Denny Hulme. Like Hill, he won the championship when he had the chance, which is all one can ask of anyone. Unlike Hill, I saw him drive. I was at the 1970 Can-Am race at Road Atlanta, and while there was certainly not the depth of talent that one would find in F1, there were some pretty decent drivers there that day. The image of Hulme coming under the bridge, down the hill, and through the last corner is still burned into my memory. To coin an old, and overused phrase, he was a man amongst boys. As a kid who dreamed of racing cars, I understood right then and there why he was special and why I could never do what he did.

Perhaps it really is an innocent and worthwhile discussion, and that I'm just unable to be objective and see any WDC as the worst. Perhaps I'm better off being that way. I'd like to think so anyway.

#126 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,172 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 17 January 2007 - 09:26

Given that Phil Hill's record in his first half-season of F1 was probably better pro rata than those of the much more experienced Musso, Hawthorn and Collins in the same cars, it's difficult to think of him as being worst of anything.

#127 Hugo Boecker

Hugo Boecker
  • Member

  • 689 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 17 January 2007 - 09:36

Originally posted by ensign14
Given that Phil Hill's record in his first half-season of F1 was probably better pro rata than those of the much more experienced Musso, Hawthorn and Collins in the same cars, it's difficult to think of him as being worst of anything.

Please can you explain.
Do you compare the drivers driving the Dino 246 or in their first half-season in F1 or as Ferrari drivers.

#128 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,172 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 17 January 2007 - 09:52

In the 246, he was 3rd on his debut at Italy (with fastest lap) and would have been 2nd at Morocco but for team orders. And even as the third stringer in 1959 he was still at the sharp end.