I am trying hard to be impartial and polite. You are not. Discussion over.
Top drivers who never won the F1 title
Posted 07 February 2014 - 10:50
All right, if I have been a bit short, I apologize. Although the episode is OT, it was brought forward as an example of the missed chances of one of the contenders for this category – looks like I’m talking like a TV announcer here – and it clearly backfired, as things were shown to be quite different from what people claimed.
One gets tired a bit, though, as however the sport is most of the times difficult to read from outside - was it the car or the tyres or the gearbox, didn't the team support him, didn't he sleep the night before, and all that - this was as clear a motor racing episode as one can find.
Posted 07 February 2014 - 11:52
Fair enough; no worries. I was just getting irritated as my the original point was how close it came to Scheckter going out of that race, and the consequenses of that had Gilles won instead. Ifs ... buts etc. I'm well aware of Gilles' faults, but often these things are less clear-cut than perceived. Perhaps this has turned out to be a less brilliant example than originally thought!
Back on topic - there's four criteria for this subject as I see it;
1) those that had a chance to win a championship, but didn't for some reason outside their control.
2) those who came relatively close on more than one occasion.
3) those whos careers were cut short before they could achieve it.
4) those whos careers coincided with an unbeatable opponent.
On that basis, I'd conclude that Moss has it covered on all counts. A select few others qualify on one or two points only.
Posted 08 February 2014 - 00:50
i think that debates like this are a) pointless and b) hugely interesting and emotive...........
If i could expand on what i see as the "categories" for this debate.
1) "the stats" - So the Webber, the Massa (i love Massa as a driver), the Ickx etc - Some of these guys were superb drivers, but the arguments for them tend to be around the stats, the race wins, the "nearly" - So take Massa, my fave driver of the last 10 years. He deserved to be world champion - no doubts. For one year he earned it. The rest of his career dont seem to back it up though. Does that make him amongst the "top" drivers never to win a championship? Im not sure...........
2) the "gut feels" - So, i fit into this category. If you asked me this over a pint, i would real off 4 men - Villeneuve, Peterson, De Angelis and Alesi. The race stats of those 4 reads 19 wins in 518 races............cant really argue it on the stats, although i see a few have tried on Gilles and Ronnie. Sometimes its about the racer, the gut feel. Same with the many Chris Amon fans, they will tell you.......watch this guy and the stats go out the window.
You wont ever get agreement on any list in F1. Its subjective, thats what makes it so great. I could sit and argue for 3hrs, that a man who one a solitary F1 race was better than several world champions............and the guy next to me will argue that a man who never won a race, was Australiasia's greatest F1 driver, above Webber and Jones et al.............Its why its such a great sport!
Posted 10 February 2014 - 13:08
I think the only thing people will ever agree on is that drivers like Yuji Ide, Nisanny, Taki Inoue, Luca Badoer, Deletrez and Al Pease would NOT be included on this list.
And with regard why I rate Alesi higher then Montoya, is that if you compare the results Alesi was just better imho.
Montoya has onyl driven for top 3 teams, Alesi has driven a lot longer. If you compare their peak time Alesi had 7 seasons and Montoya had 6 seasons.
They both had plenty of retirements only in Alesi time it was mostly because of the nature of the cars. Montoya never had that problem, (allthough he had numerous engine failures in his first season, often in beginning of the race, dunno how he managed to keep doing that?) He also managed to crash into cars even backmarkers who he managed to suprise expecting them to suddenly dissapear as soon as he passed them (happens in games not in reallife JPM)
Posted 19 February 2014 - 10:55
Yeah, that was me! Sorry, I didn't read all of your posts, as I did't really feel like twisting my brains into a knot, but your opening sentence (was it?) about "first tier drivers who regularly won in non-dominant cars" already had me in stitches. So, we have that old argument again about dominant and not-so-dominant cars (yawn!). "If driver X wins, it's the car, and if driver Y wins, it's the driver..." yeah, yeah, one can guess the rest. Reading on who's on your short list of regular winners in non-dominant cars, I can't stop shaking my head - if this looks like I'm a Villeneuve basher, I ain't, but this sort of nonsense just goes to show how much he's overrated - When was Gilles Villeneuve ever a regular winner?? Okay so, maybe in 1979, but you are not going to tell me he drove a non-dominant car that year, as his teammate (who only rates second tier in your *twisted* logic - how else can one name that?) won the title! And so it goes on and on, and time becomes too valuable to waste it with discussing such nonsense.
It's not your vocabulary that is incomplete, it's your logic!
Now I see, what you mean. Thanks for clarifying!
When I wrote about Villeneuve being a regular winner in a non-dominant car, I wasn't thinking of 1979, but 1981. That first generation turbocharged Ferrari sure did have a powerful engine, but the chassis was so terrible, that I consider it a miracle that anybody managed to win in such a car - almost like someone winning in an Osella, a Gordini or an ATS (both the Italian and the German) - and Villeneuve did it twice, in succesive races. But you are right, two wins in a row is a bit away from being a regular winner.
I guess my statement about such an evaluation being "fairly simple" was a bit of a simplification in itself, based on my naive assumption that it would be easier to agree on the identity of the dominant car (if such a thing existed, not every season had a Lotus 79 or a McLaren MP4/4) of a given year than agreeing on who the best driver might've been. The thinking was, that instead of comparing drivers from different eas, we could attempt to evaluate their achievements in their own right, in their respective eras.
But of course this does open new issues - different eras had different challenges, risks, issues of reliability and so on.
Perhaps a more true picture of a given season can be found by studying lap charts, and working out score sheets based on potential (that is, every driver who led a given GP is given nine points, anybody who ran as high as second is given six points, and so on), although that leaves us with a problem in the form of scheduled pitstops regarding the last 30 or so years.
In 1979, by the way, Villeneuve scored 91 potential points (leading at Kyalami, Long Beach, Dijon, Österreichring, Zandvoort, Montreal and Watkins Glen, running second at Monaco and Monza, third at Jarama and Zolder, fourth at Brands Hatch, fifth at Interlagos and Hockenheim and sixth at Buenos Aires), Jones got 80 and Scheckter 78 potential points.
However, I'm not going to claim to have found the complete truth about the topic at hand. As Niels Bohr once stated, the opposite of the truth isn't the lie - it's the simplification. On the other hand, without simplifications, we can't debate anything, so instead we'll live with the shortcomings of our semantics, fully realising the the complex and multi-faceted nature of the topic at hand.
A final word on Gilles Villeneuve. A decade or so ago on another forum the debate was raging on the virtues of a number of front-running drivers, who never won the championship. I (and a few more) brought forward the name Tony Brooks, but most quickly dismissed his inclusion, as they'd taken a quick look on his career statistics and concluded that he only was around for a few years, "only" won six GPs in his three years with Vanwall and Ferrari and showed little interest or quality elsewhere (the Syracuse win in the Connaught was unknown to them, as non-WC races was beyond their horizon - quite understandable, as these once so numerous races has been a thing of the past for 30 years now).
I think the same is happening to the reputation of Gilles Villeneuve, who today seems to be viewed as some sort of madman, a 1978-82 Willy Mairesse, only running fast due to a complete lack of imagination and concern for his equipment, crashing cars as often as Andrea de Cesaris in 1981 or Vittorio Brambilla in 1976. To me, that's selling Gilles Villeneuve short. Contemporaries like Jones, Scheckter and Lafitte always praised his skills and his character in manner not unlike the assesment of Fangio and Clark (and Moss) by their contemporaries.