127 replies to this topic

[Afterburner]

Okay, having watched this thread boil on and having observed the general consensus of opinion here, I think it's time I add my two pence. If you chose the second option in the poll, I politely urge you to read this in full--it's not in any way meant to be an attack, it's merely an attempt to get you to broaden your spectrum of reasoning when discussing racing, particularly F1, with others.

Firstly, there is a piece of the hypothetical that is intentionally missing--one I left out on purpose as a little experiment, to see how people would fill it in with their minds. This particular piece is the margin by which each of the championships in question is won. It came as a huge shock to me just how little this particular variable was even considered and how quickly nearly everyone in the thread assumed that being a 10x WDC against rubbish teammates meant that all ten championships came in a completely dominant car, with little to no effort or contest from others at all. A number of those who voted for the first option did so even assuming that their career made it impossible for them to be universally considered the best--as if every championship they won was seen as being 'too easy' for them to be considered the best of the best.

I don't know if this is due to lack of imagination or some other factor, but I really have to wonder why this assumption was made almost universally and, save for a few small instances (including BillBald, last page), has been practically unchallenged through the course of the thread. It's a pattern that I notice repeating itself everywhere on the internet in quantities almost too large to be considered a minority: the perception that great success is almost effortless and therefore not worth praise or admiration. Why is it that this is immediately assumed? Is it that unpopular to defend the winner?

That being said, I therefore wonder why anyone would ever choose the second option in the poll. You could have won all ten of those championships in a freaking Super Aguri with Sakon Yamamoto as your teammate, finishing last or not at all in every race, making you look like God's gift to racing as you rack up a string of improbable podiums on your way to a series of miracle titles with a team running on a shoestring budget. Why the hell would you rather watch title after title slip away, beating champion after champion in the same car, when you could be beating them in a clearly inferior car year in, year out? (And become Japan's national hero in the process, lol.)

The greatest irony in all this, to me, is how most people who choose/chose the second option tend do so on the basis that 'there's more to raw stats than meets the eye', and pride themselves on their ability to read between the lines when comparing drivers--yet here, they completely failed to use exactly that sort of outside-the-box thinking to recognise that their titles could have come in an inferior car. If you don't believe me, I suggest you pose the exact question in the opening post--word for word, no cheating--to someone who fits the aforementioned description, and watch as they choose the second option and attempt to defend themselves while completely missing the obvious answer. If so, their perspective of how a driver's talent is defined is not well-rounded, as they'd like to think, but myopic. I'm not saying that those who know this and prefer the second option are myopic--merely that those who fail to consider this possibility are myopic in their evaluation of drivers' abilities. The next time you hear someone profess their scepticism of statistics as a measure of talent, be wary.

If you've already realised this, then you understand that comparing drivers who have never been teammates is futile, and that evaluating drivers based on the teammates they defeated is also futile, because unless they won the championship in that respective year, there's every possibility that the driver they lost the championship to actually did better than them in a worse car (2007 is a pretty good example of this, in my opinion--regardless of who you think was best that year, there's no conclusively proving it). If you're this far, then you probably also realise that your opinion is just that, opinion, and no amount of bickering will make it fact.

As for wanting notoriety or adulation and believing that can't be obtained from the first option, consider what I call the 'Alonso Effect'--where would his place in history be had he won 2010 and 2012? Surely post-spring Massa is not and has never been widely-considered a top-tier driver--yet it's almost unanimous that the Ferrari was a wreck compared to the RBR both years, and because of this, Alonso is considered perhaps the best in the field and one of the all-time greats for his performance in those seasons. If you chose the second option in the poll in the name of public acknowledgment of your talent, how did you so easily miss that all ten of your consecutive championships could've come under similar circumstances?

Anyway, this is all just food for thought. So far, this thread has provided exactly what I was hoping for--honest discussion on what causes us to respect certain drivers as talented, free of any biases or stupid bickering. If you have any arguments against my reasoning in this post or think that it's completely bogus, I'd love to hear your thoughts as well. Thanks everyone.

[sennafan24]

Okay, having watched this thread boil on and having observed the general consensus of opinion here, I think it's time I add my two pence. If you chose the second option in the poll, I politely urge you to read this in full--it's not in any way meant to be an attack, it's merely an attempt to get you to broaden your spectrum of reasoning when discussing racing, particularly F1, with others.

Firstly, there is a piece of the hypothetical that is intentionally missing--one I left out on purpose as a little experiment, to see how people would fill it in with their minds. This particular piece is the margin by which each of the championships in question is won. It came as a huge shock to me just how little this particular variable was even considered and how quickly nearly everyone in the thread assumed that being a 10x WDC against rubbish teammates meant that all ten championships came in a completely dominant car, with little to no effort or contest from others at all. A number of those who voted for the first option did so even assuming that their career made it impossible for them to be universally considered the best--as if every championship they won was seen as being 'too easy' for them to be considered the best of the best.

I don't know if this is due to lack of imagination or some other factor, but I really have to wonder why this assumption was made almost universally and, save for a few small instances (including BillBald, last page), has been practically unchallenged through the course of the thread. It's a pattern that I notice repeating itself everywhere on the internet in quantities almost too large to be considered a minority: the perception that great success is almost effortless and therefore not worth praise or admiration. Why is it that this is immediately assumed? Is it that unpopular to defend the winner?

Sopa mentioned that about Vettel's 2013 campaign.

[Afterburner]

Sopa mentioned that about Vettel's 2013 campaign.

Yeah, he was 'one of the few' (no Final Cut reference intended) I was referring to. Granted, it's just you and maybe a few others in here anyway, so...

Sorry.

[sennafan24]

Yeah, he was 'one of the few' (no Final Cut reference intended) I was referring to. Granted, it's just you and maybe a few others in here anyway, so...

Sorry.

You raised a very good point though 

[Afterburner]

Exb, I don't know where your post went, but I wish it hadn't disappeared because I liked it, and it brought me to my next point about choosing the first option in the poll. When I have more time, maybe I'll elaborate.

[UbiquitousPeas]

Okay, having watched this thread boil on and having observed the general consensus of opinion here, I think it's time I add my two pence....If you have any arguments against my reasoning in this post or think that it's completely bogus, I'd love to hear your thoughts as well. Thanks everyone.

For what's it worth, I politely stated that your poll was crap and didn't vote on that basis! Saying that your "explanation" above has, somewhat incredibly, made your poll seem even more ridiculous than it was at first glance.

Your complaint in the above post can be summed up in another way. You started a fixed either/or poll, deliberately holding back your own arbitrary variables and then selectively introduced them in your "explanation" as a means of justifying something or other to yourself and incredibly draw conclusions on that basis!

Interestingly, you're quick to look for flaws and bias in others but are blind to your own. As I pointed out in a similar thread to this one ("Beating top class teammates") - this is a thread which is really about Vettel started by a Vettel fan in which other Vettel fans (as per the incidence of Vettel appearing under "favourite driver(s)" on user accounts) are the majority of those arguing that stats in F1 should always be taken at face value. Funny that.

Then there are claims of "out-of-the-box thinking" in the context of "inferior cars." Well, how many WDCs have been won in inferior cars? Not many. So how on earth did you bank on people factoring in arbitrary and unlikely variables you had in your head, which you then deliberately withheld?

And of course, your poll was open to all sorts of wider variables, given that it was fixed. So the selective introduction (of, the poll starter's [i.e you] choosing) of just a couple of those variables whilst all other variables still haven't been considered, means your "explanation" and conclusions can only be considered null and void.

Moreover, it's entirely possible for someone with the opposite viewpoint to yours (i.e option no.2) to have created the same poll and have pulled the same trick on you. For example, after you voted for option 1 they could turn around and say "Ah, you've assumed that all of these 10xWDC were closely fought wins against a teammate and other drivers/cars! But what I didn't tell you is that those 10xWDCs came the most dominant F1 cars ever seen, which were 10 seconds a lap faster than the next best car on the grid and the teammate was a nobody who crashed his car in most races." Which would be absolutely pointless and a complete and utter waste of everyone's time, right?

And as predictable as you think the answers of the "there's more to stats than meets the eye" crowd will be, it can equally be said that ask the same (ridiculous) poll question to Vettel fans and watch their predictable "stats are al that matter should be always be taken at face value" response. In other words, you're every bit as biased as you think others are but worryingly you don't even begin to see it and ironically you accuse others of being myopic!

Specifically on F1, if you cannot understand why the stats of any driver should be considered in some kind of wider context given that F1 is a TEAM sport, then I genuinely despair. But as previously stated, I think that's due to driver bias - for Vettel in this case. Afterall, just some of the "arguments" I've seen offered by some Vettel fans in the past couple of days include:

- If Vettel is beaten by Ricciardo in the 2014 WDC, Vettel's standing will be the same because afterall he has won 4xWDC

- If Vettel is beaten to a WDC by a teammate in the future, that won't have any bearing on Vettel's standing. The new WDC teammate would be "just another WDC."

- WDCs are the only measure which counts.

- The long-known first aim of beating a teammate as first aim of every F1 driver is "commentator hype."

- All that matters is what a driver does with a dominant cars.

- And now your poll and "explanation" a.k.a put-up job!

The lengths some of you are going to (i.e inventing crazy polls/explanations and attempting to re-write measures of F1 driver reputation which have been held since time immemorial) to defend Vettel or get your excuses in early, are crazy. 2014 is just FOUR races old and at the moment Ricciardo has the upper hand. That's it. And I thought Vettel's detractors were supposed to be the reactionary ones!?

But just look at these cluster of threads, which are really about Vettel, created by Vettel fans. Heaven knows how you'll cope if Ricciardo does beat Vettel in the 2014 WDC standings. The mind boggles at the thought of which new "explanations" and "proof" will be offered and invented on his behalf.

And my final point to Vettel fans is this; if you are convinced about his racing reputation as being a 4xWDC, then why the need to go to such lengths to try to convince other people of that same view? One has to wonder if you're trying to convince others, or yourselves.

[Afterburner]

For what's it worth, I politely stated that your poll was crap and didn't vote on that basis! Saying that your "explanation" above has, somewhat incredibly, made your poll seem even more ridiculous than it was at first glance.

Your complaint in the above post can be summed up in another way. You started a fixed either/or poll, deliberately holding back your own arbitrary variables and then selectively introduced them in your "explanation" as a means of justifying something or other to yourself and incredibly draw conclusions on that basis!

Sounds a lot like what I do in my head on an hourly basis, so I follow so far.
 

Interestingly, you're quick to look for flaws and bias in others but are blind to your own. As I pointed out in a similar thread to this one ("Beating top class teammates") - this is a thread which is really about Vettel started by a Vettel fan in which other Vettel fans (as per the incidence of Vettel appearing under "favourite driver(s)" on user accounts) are the majority of those arguing that stats in F1 should always be taken at face value. Funny that.

Then there are claims of "out-of-the-box thinking" in the context of "inferior cars." Well, how many WDCs have been won in inferior cars? Not many. So how on earth did you bank on people factoring in arbitrary and unlikely variables you had in your head, which you then deliberately withheld?

And of course, your poll was open to all sorts of wider variables, given that it was fixed. So the selective introduction (of, the poll starter's [i.e you] choosing) of just a couple of those variables whilst all other variables still haven't been considered, means your "explanation" and conclusions can only be considered null and void.

Moreover, it's entirely possible for someone with the opposite viewpoint to yours (i.e option no.2) to have created the same poll and have pulled the same trick on you. For example, after you voted for option 1 they could turn around and say "Ah, you've assumed that all of these 10xWDC were closely fought wins against a teammate and other drivers/cars! But what I didn't tell you is that those 10xWDCs came the most dominant F1 cars ever seen, which were 10 seconds a lap faster than the next best car on the grid and the teammate was a nobody who crashed his car in most races." Which would be absolutely pointless and a complete and utter waste of everyone's time, right?

To borrow a line from a certain delightfully un-PC grey-haired hare: wait just a cotton-pickin' minute. I'm not blind to my own biases--in fact, I end up crashing into them on a regular basis. I don't hold my opinion above anyone else's, which was one of the primary tenets of the post in question. Maybe you ought to read a few more of my posts before you jump to such hasty conclusions.

The information I deliberately withheld in the poll (which goes far beyond what I stated in my above post, by the way--to list every allowable scenario would be to drown out all discussion in melodramatically-verbose legalese) could've been filled in by an almost unlimited number of scenarios that could satisfy anything the voter wanted--how can you conclude that the poll is fixed from that? I didn't put everyone in a box and give subtle clues saying 'here's the carrot', as if to say there was only one correct answer--as a matter of fact, I never even said the second answer was the wrong answer. It's all down to what the voter wants. It's not entirely outlandish to assume that, as racing fans, we know what constitutes a driver's career, no? Why would it be wrong to assume that readers of this thread would be able to fill in the blanks themselves? Voters in the poll are only limited by their imaginations--for me to kill their dreams of being the only WDC who is also the world's only successful artist in the genre of Hispanic Lutheran Cowboy Rap would be criminal.

And your implication that I have behaved in any way like the example at the end of this particular quotebox is simply false. In the context of the poll, it's completely possible that a voter's hypothetical 10x WDC career could proceed exactly as you've outlined--or as I have. It's totally up to them. It's far from being a 'trick' unless you were actually outsmarted by your own ability to place yourself in such a scenario.
 

And as predictable as you think the answers of the "there's more to stats than meets the eye" crowd will be, it can equally be said that ask the same (ridiculous) poll question to Vettel fans and watch their predictable "stats are al that matter should be always be taken at face value" response. In other words, you're every bit as biased as you think others are but worryingly you don't even begin to see it and ironically you accuse others of being myopic!

You have completely lost me with this paragraph, sorry. If you read my original post, you'd understand that I consider it impossible to determine the true value of stats in evaluating any driver's worth, and that all we have are our opinions--in other words, neither of the two views you're talking about is 100% right, and it's more a bizarre shade of grey (not one of the fifty). This ambiguity of ability is one of the things that makes discussing racing fun--with the right people, anyway. I respect the fact that you find this viewpoint 'worrying'.
 

Specifically on F1, if you cannot understand why the stats of any driver should be considered in some kind of wider context given that F1 is a TEAM sport, then I genuinely despair. But as previously stated, I think that's due to driver bias - for Vettel in this case. Afterall, just some of the "arguments" I've seen offered by some Vettel fans in the past couple of days include:

- If Vettel is beaten by Ricciardo in the 2014 WDC, Vettel's standing will be the same because afterall he has won 4xWDC

- If Vettel is beaten to a WDC by a teammate in the future, that won't have any bearing on Vettel's standing. The new WDC teammate would be "just another WDC."

- WDCs are the only measure which counts.

- The long-known first aim of beating a teammate as first aim of every F1 driver is "commentator hype."

- All that matters is what a driver does with a dominant cars.

- And now your poll and "explanation" a.k.a put-up job!

The lengths some of you are going to (i.e inventing crazy polls/explanations and attempting to re-write measures of F1 driver reputation which have been held since time immemorial) to defend Vettel or get your excuses in early, are crazy. 2014 is just FOUR races old and at the moment Ricciardo has the upper hand. That's it. And I thought Vettel's detractors were supposed to be the reactionary ones!?

But just look at these cluster of threads, which are really about Vettel, created by Vettel fans. Heaven knows how you'll cope if Ricciardo does beat Vettel in the 2014 WDC standings. The mind boggles at the thought of which new "explanations" and "proof" will be offered and invented on his behalf.

And my final point to Vettel fans is this; if you are convinced about his racing reputation as being a 4xWDC, then why the need to go to such lengths to try to convince other people of that same view? One has to wonder if you're trying to convince others, or yourselves.

And here is where I transition from 'happy Afterburner' into 'disgruntled Autosport forum member', because this is typical internet forum mumbo-jumbo.

Firstly, looking over my above post, Vettel is mentioned a whopping zero times. Looking over yours... 17 times. If anyone is making this about Vettel, it's you, my friend. I have no agenda other than to better learn and understand the viewpoints of this forum's F1 followers (and what I would personally want to extract from my hypothetical daydream career as an F1 driver, of course).

With this in mind, I will respectfully propose that perhaps you should wonder if you're trying to convince others of the validity of your argument, or convince yourself. After all, if you were so sure you were right, why on earth would you spend so much time in a thread containing a 'crap poll' started by someone who is 'blind to their own biases'?

I accept your accusations and plead guilty to a few of them, and I shall leave our discussion there. I feel no need to defend my views to anyone else here, as the membership of this forum knows fully well who I am and how I feel about all of this--they hear it each time someone like you shows up. Over the years along with them, I have watched a number of members just like you crop up, make a couple of posts like the one you've just made, and then mysteriously go 'missing from the database'. Consider it a warning--if you value your time here, you may wish to change tack.

(Oh, and thanks for reminding me it's about time I updated my profile to show all the drivers and teams I support. Been meaning to do that since F1 fell largely out of favour with me; priorities, you know. There's far more to motorsport than just F1. )

[UbiquitousPeas]

I'm not blind to my own biases--in fact, I end up crashing into them on a regular basis.

The very existence of the poll, and worse, the convoluted "explanation" to prove a point (concerning a view you already held) suggests to me that you're not aware of your own bias.
 

The information I deliberately withheld in the poll could've been filled in by an almost unlimited number of scenarios that could satisfy anything the voter wanted--how can you conclude that the poll is fixed from that?...It's all down to what the voter wants...In the context of the poll, it's completely possible that a voter's hypothetical 10x WDC career could proceed exactly as you've outlined--or as I have. It's totally up to them.

Crikey, you still don't get it!

A fixed questionnaire/poll is one with a number of limited, fixed and definite answers i.e such as yours. Fixed polls deliberately exclude variables. So for you to suddenly turn around and announce that there is a hidden variable (of which there are actually many which could be applied to your poll) which you've held back, makes the entire poll, your explanation and the thread, pointless. In other words, a fixed poll cannot be "all down to what the voter wants" or "totally up to them." That doesn't even make sense.

Please never apply for a job with Ipsos Mori!
 

You have completely lost me with this paragraph, sorry. If you read my original post, you'd understand that I consider it impossible to determine the true value of stats in evaluating any driver's worth, and that all we have are our opinions--in other words, neither of the two views you're talking about is 100% right...

So which new ground were you hoping to break with this poll/put up job about racing reputation? Because given your "explanation", your thread has been a complete waste of everyone's time. As I keep saying, it wasn't a poll but rather a put-up job.
 

Firstly, looking over my above post, Vettel is mentioned a whopping zero times. Looking over yours... 17 times. If anyone is making this about Vettel, it's you, my friend. I have no agenda...

You even said it yourself, this thread grew out of the Vettel v Ricciardo thread. And your point is referenced in another thread which is also clearly about Vettel and his achievements.

Please stop pretending it's not about Vettel.
 

With this in mind, I will respectfully propose that perhaps you should wonder if you're trying to convince others of the validity of your argument, or convince yourself. After all, if you were so sure you were right, why on earth would you spend so much time in a thread containing a 'crap poll' started by someone who is 'blind to their own biases'?

Everyone has bias. I am aware of my own, seemingly far more than you are of yours! But then I'm not the one starting fixed polls only to then draw conclusions from the belated and selective introduction of arbitrary variables!
 

...each time someone like you shows up. Over the years along with them, I have watched a number of members just like you crop up, make a couple of posts like the one you've just made, and then mysteriously go 'missing from the database'. Consider it a warning--if you value your time here, you may wish to change tack.

How charmless and creepy. A "warning" from someone who isn't a moderator after I've made an on-topic reply to your post, or flawed poll in this case!

And as you don't seem to understand, it's impossible to stop anyone accessing and using a messageboard or forum on the internet. As I'm sure the moderators of each and every forum are aware, you can't "ban" someone from using a specific internet webpage.
 

(Oh, and thanks for reminding me it's about time I updated my profile to show all the drivers and teams I support.

Well, I guess that will stop you being hoisted by your own petard in the future!

[RubalSher]

But just look at these cluster of threads, which are really about Vettel, created by Vettel fans. Heaven knows how you'll cope if Ricciardo does beat Vettel in the 2014 WDC standings. The mind boggles at the thought of which new "explanations" and "proof" will be offered and invented on his behalf.

And my final point to Vettel fans is this; if you are convinced about his racing reputation as being a 4xWDC, then why the need to go to such lengths to try to convince other people of that same view? One has to wonder if you're trying to convince others, or yourselves.

 

/Thread

[sennafan24]

It works both ways like with most drivers.

 

Most Vettel fans on here are logical and fairly objective, but a few are just far too defensive and fanatical. Same with Hamilton and Kimi fans, a few bad apples spoil a bunch. Same rule applies to the critics of Seb and Lewis, most are fair, but a small minority are just unreasonable.

 

Anyway, I see no reason why this thread cannot continue without it been turned into a Vettel debate. Numerous other drivers have bee referenced so far, by myself and others.

Edited by sennafan24, 05 May 2014 - 14:40.

[UbiquitousPeas]

It works both ways like with most drivers.
 
Most Vettel fans on here are logical and fairly objective, but a few are just far too defensive and fanatical. Same with Hamilton and Kimi fans, a few bad apples spoil a bunch. Same rule applies to the critics of Seb and Lewis, most are fair, but a small minority are just unreasonable.
 
Anyway, I see no reason why this thread cannot continue without it been turned into a Vettel debate. Numerous other drivers have bee referenced so far, by myself and others.

True re. every driver attracting some "bad apples" for fans. Also true re. some of the Vettel fans being defensive and fanatical. The thing which stands about that for me is that it comes after just FOUR races of this season. For all we know, RB might have developed their car to be more suited to Vettel's driving style for Barcelona and beyond. At which point Vettel might dominate Ricciardo. But talk about some Vettel fans not keeping their cool and instead the panic has already started! Very odd.

[sennafan24]

 But talk about some Vettel fans not keeping their cool and instead the panic has already started! Very odd.

To be fair though. They are provoked by some right vultures who never give Seb any credit.

 

(not aimed at you, just so we are clear)

[UbiquitousPeas]

To be fair though. They are provoked by some right vultures who never give Seb any credit.
 
(not aimed at you, just so we are clear)

I don't doubt it. Across the internet both Vettel and Hamilton seem to attract a large minority of posters who seem to believe that neither driver can do anything right!

But in the case of Vettel's fans at the moment I don't see any provocation but instead Vettel fans getting ultra, and prematurely, defensive about him as Ricciardo currently has the upper-hand.

Edited by UbiquitousPeas, 05 May 2014 - 16:41.

[jjcale]

I don't doubt it. Across the internet both Vettel and Hamilton seem to attract a large minority of posters who seem to believe that neither driver can do anything right!

But in the case of Vettel's fans at the moment I don't see any provocation but instead Vettel fans getting ultra, and prematurely, defensive about him as Ricciardo currently has the upper-hand.

 

For pretty obvious reasons .... these are the first two drivers to have had their hand held all way the way from karting to winning the WDC by one team/sponsor. LH started his F1 life in the equal best car and has always had good cars and SV has had more years in a winning neweymobile than any previous driver..... they now have some of the best stats on the grid. By the end of this year they will probably both have more poles and wins than the rest of the grid combined.... but are they really that good.... esp in comparison to someone like FA or even pre-2014 KR?

 

Its only natural that there will be folks who think they had a leg up on everyone else and therefore question whether their results are a true reflection of their talent.

 

... Its just the reverse of folks who saying NH is really very good except he has not had the car to show it.... but nobody looks down on those folks for expressing their opinion..

[sennafan24]

But in the case of Vettel's fans at the moment I don't see any provocation but instead Vettel fans getting ultra, and prematurely, defensive about him as Ricciardo currently has the upper-hand.

Fair play, I will respectfully disagree a bit there, some Vettel defenders cages have been rattled by over eager critics the past few weeks. In reality I think there has been a bit of a overreaction to Seb's performances this year, but that is debate for another thread.

 

Welcome to the forum by the way 

[UbiquitousPeas]

For pretty obvious reasons .... these are the first two drivers to have had their hand held all way the way from karting to winning the WDC by one team/sponsor. LH started his F1 life in the equal best car and has always had good cars and SV has had more years in a winning neweymobile than any previous driver..... they now have some of the best stats on the grid. By the end of this year they will probably both have more poles and wins than the rest of the grid combined.... but are they really that good.... esp in comparison to someone like FA or even pre-2014 KR?
 
Its only natural that there will be folks who think they had a leg up on everyone else and therefore question whether their results are a true reflection of their talent.
 
... Its just the reverse of folks who saying NH is really very good except he has not had the car to show it.... but nobody looks down on those folks for expressing their opinion..

I know what you're saying and agree. But a lot of what I read seems to have a personal slant to it - large minorities of F1 fans really seem to dislike Vettel and Hamilton. Sometimes the comments come across as spiteful rather than legitimate doubts caused by perceived advantages the two drivers have had.

Anyway, I really want to see Vettel join Mercedes, hopefully with Hamilton as a 2 or 3xWDC. Can you imagine the fireworks that inter-team battle cause!? It would be great to watch and perhaps even more explosive than Alonso-Hamilton was.

[UbiquitousPeas]

Fair play, I will respectfully disagree a bit there, some Vettel defenders cages have been rattled by over eager critics the past few weeks. In reality I think there has been a bit of a overreaction to Seb's performances this year, but that is debate for another thread.
 
Welcome to the forum by the way 

Yep, seems too many are getting a bit giddy with excitement about Ricciardo currently having the upper-hand and too many getting their excuses in early/ultra-defensive about Vettel.

And thank you for the welcome!

[TheUltimateWorrier]

 

If you were a racing driver, would you rather be one who faced rubbish teammates their whole career but went undefeated all ten years of your career to win ten consecutive championships (potentially breaking the most poles/wins records), or one who never lost to a teammate--ten world champions included over your career--but potentially only won one or two championships?

Okay, having watched this thread boil on and having observed the general consensus of opinion here, I think it's time I add my two pence. If you chose the second option in the poll, I politely urge you to read this in full--it's not in any way meant to be an attack, it's merely an attempt to get you to broaden your spectrum of reasoning when discussing racing, particularly F1, with others.

 

. . .

That being said, I therefore wonder why anyone would ever choose the second option in the poll. 

 

I was under the assumption from your question that it would be me as a racing driver, so it would be my own strengths and weaknesses.  Perhaps if I read the entire OP I would've gathered there's some agenda going on, rather than a nice, innocent poll, but whatever.

 

I don't believe that I have the ability or the confidence to win 10 WDCs, so I would have something akin to survivor's guilt somehow winning so many titles.  Having one or two WDCs and beating other WDCs would feel right, as I'd feel as though I hadn't cheated/lucked into any WDCs and spending my retirement constantly pondering my worthiness over winning 10 titles.

 

 

Also 10 titles? Even Loeb got bored after 9 

[Exb]

Exb, I don't know where your post went, but I wish it hadn't disappeared because I liked it, and it brought me to my next point about choosing the first option in the poll. When I have more time, maybe I'll elaborate.

 

I deleted it after reading it back - this thread has drifted so far away from what I thought it was about it made little sense.

 

 

 

I was under the assumption from your question that it would be me as a racing driver, so it would be my own strengths and weaknesses.  Perhaps if I read the entire OP I would've gathered there's some agenda going on, rather than a nice, innocent poll, but whatever.

 

 

Kind of what I thought we should be discussing but it seems there are way to many people with agendas for that so its just turned into another driver verses thread.

Edited by Exb, 05 May 2014 - 22:22.

[bourbon]

B.B? Take it you mean bulletin board by that? Alonso's body of work is actually very impressive when compared to drivers from the same timespan as himself.

 

I do not have to "invent a criteria", just simply explore what Alonso has achieved and the context in which he did it. Alonso is a driver I respect and like, but he is not my favorite driver of this era. I have no agenda, if I did I would be trying to discredit Prost's body of work as a Senna fan.

 

Firstly, he is 2x WDC, and ended the Schumacher dominance in 2006 with consistent driving and a lot of bottle . In 2005 he had the most reliable car, but he had a mistake free season other than one crash in Canada. He is a proven World Champion.

 

Alonso beat Trulli head to head, but after that we find pure quality in comparisons to his teammates. Giancarlo Fisichella was actually highly touted before he went head to had with Alonso. In 2001 F1 racing magazine voted him "best of the rest" behind Schumi. Yet Alonso beat him tidily. Against Lewis more quality can be found. In 2 car finishes he was 9-6 over Lewis in 2007. Not even Jenson in 2011 outright beat Lewis in that stat, neither did Rosbeg last year.

 

I am sure most would agree that Lewis is a higher caliber of teammate than Schumacher ever faced, or so far Seb (for the record I agree it is unfair to talk about Seb's body of work already, too far for him to go before we explore properly).

 

Massa was seen as the 2nd best driver of 2008 by team principals, yet Alonso tidily beat him over 4 years. Alonso's 2012 campaign is critically acclaimed by the F1 community. I think it is a tad overrated, but legions of fans are holding it up as one of the best campaigns in the modern era.

 

There is a lot of quality in Alonso's body of work already. I personally think there is a valid argument he ranks up there with Senna, Prost and Schumi. 

 

Just my opinion.

 

Well I respect your view, but I don't understand your reasoning.  You said:

 

SENNAFAN:  "If I had one critique of Schumi's body of work it is that he had 10 years with either Rubens or Irvine as a teammate. In that time he won 5 of his 7 titles. Rubens was a solid driver from 2000-2002, and Schumi handily beat him. But Schumi's body of work in that period is not as impressive as other greats in my opinion."

 

And then you said in support of those other greats:

 

SENNAFAN:  "Prost had Lauda, Senna, Hill, Mansell, Rosberg and Alesi as teammates. My calculations are he went 6-2 against that class in years outscored, which is a main reason I think so highly of his body of work. He won his 4 WDC's during this time also, which highly compliments his overall resume."

 

 

And then you state:

 

SENNAFAN:  "Alonso beat Trulli head to head, [...] Giancarlo Fisichella  [...] Alonso beat him tidily. Against Lewis more quality can be found. In 2 car finishes he was 9-6 over Lewis in 2007. Not even Jenson in 2011 outright beat Lewis in that stat, neither did Rosbeg last year.  Massa [...] Alonso tidily beat him over 4 years.  Alonso's 2012 campaign is critically acclaimed by the F1 community. [...]"

 

 

 

This is your 'body of work' evidence for Alonso that is supposed to see him rated with Prost as set forth directly above?  

 

The Dubious quality of his teammates aside - there is not 1 WDC among them.  Furthermore, any stats against Lewis do not count because Lewis was a rookie, making rookie mistakes and having rookie incidents at the time.   Let Alonso go up against Lewis once he had the added mindset, confidence and experience of a WDC champion (2 years on) and I am not so certain Alonso would keep up at all and I can't rate him at all on this basis.

 

So I have to disagree with your assessment - which is not a big deal because we've already agreed this is subjective.

 

But look what we can agree on:  Alonso is a highly regarded 2x WDC. 

 

That is why I would elect the WDC over beating teammates.  It is an objective measure.

Edited by bourbon, 06 May 2014 - 04:45.

[sennafan24]

The Dubious quality of his teammates aside - there is not 1 WDC among them.  Furthermore, any stats against Lewis do not count because Lewis was a rookie, making rookie mistakes and having rookie incidents at the time.   Let Alonso go up against Lewis once he had the added mindset, confidence and experience of a WDC champion (2 years on) and I am not so certain Alonso would keep up at all and I can't rate him at all on this basis.

My post served to highlight the opposite.

 

Alonso's teammates were highly regarded before they went against Alonso. The way in which he beat the likes of G.F and Massa was most impressive, he pretty much destroyed the prior perception that both were top drivers (look at the polls I posted above to support that perception). A bit like how now people now say that Webber has always been a average driver, when from 2006-2010 he was a strong driver (which makes how Seb beating him impressive to say the least)

 

I disagree that Alonso's performances against Lewis are irrelevant because Lewis was a rookie.Yes, Lewis has improved since then as a overall driver. but 9-6 ahead in 2 car finishes supports that Alonso's race pace is strong. Even in Lewis's worst season of 2011, Lewis and Jenson tied 7-7 in 2 car finishes

 

I am not saying Alonso has the best teammate resume of the all-time greats, but I would suggest there is a argument that it is on par with Schumi's teammate resume. When you look at Alonso's overall career, there is not much to critique as a driver. Some campaigns are better than others, but he has always performed to a very high quality. I think there is a argument you could mention him among the names of Senna, Prost and Schumi.

 

Although I do think a 3 WDC would cement that perception, so you might have a point in there 

[Rinehart]

Both rather extreme scenarios to vote on.

At the end of the day, what is enjoyable about motor-racing is RACING. Driving off into the distance, gets pretty mundane after a while.

 

Even on a racing simulator, there is the option to put every setting on easy and drive off into the distance but for me the most enjoyable scenario is the toughest, closest battles.

 

If I were an F1 driver of course I'd hope to be successful, but I think if it got "too easy" I'd look for another challenge. 

[LewDaMan]

For what's it worth, I politely stated that your poll was crap and didn't vote on that basis...etc etc etc

Brutal!

But accurate. This didn't really seem like an innocent little poll afterall.

[Afterburner]

I was under the assumption from your question that it would be me as a racing driver, so it would be my own strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps if I read the entire OP I would've gathered there's some agenda going on, rather than a nice, innocent poll, but whatever.

I don't believe that I have the ability or the confidence to win 10 WDCs, so I would have something akin to survivor's guilt somehow winning so many titles.  Having one or two WDCs and beating other WDCs would feel right, as I'd feel as though I hadn't cheated/lucked into any WDCs and spending my retirement constantly pondering my worthiness over winning 10 titles. 
 
Also 10 titles? Even Loeb got bored after 9 

You are correct. Ten titles is a bit of hyperbole, but things get more fun when they're ridiculous.

And don't doubt yourself: the world you desire can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible--it is yours.
 

Both rather extreme scenarios to vote on.
At the end of the day, what is enjoyable about motor-racing is RACING. Driving off into the distance, gets pretty mundane after a while.
 
Even on a racing simulator, there is the option to put every setting on easy and drive off into the distance but for me the most enjoyable scenario is the toughest, closest battles.
 
If I were an F1 driver of course I'd hope to be successful, but I think if it got "too easy" I'd look for another challenge.

If I'm ever lucky enough to break into racing (it's never too late, right?) I don't think I'd stay in one particular kind for too long, no matter how well I did; I'd probably even spend a little time in REFCAR NASCAR just to see what those guys get up to every other weekend. Other than DOGECAR, that is.
 

Brutal!

But accurate. This didn't really seem like an innocent little poll afterall.

For all of you bandying around baseless accusations like this, I implore you to prove it. Seriously, do your worst--rifle through my posting history and find all the evidence you can if you have to. If you're so convinced I've done this as part of some conspiracy to defend Vettel's internet legacy, show me some actual grounds for that opinion. I'll wait.

Just so we're clear, this is the (off-topic) post--an indirect reply to lbennie's comment about what teammate comparisons meant for champions' legacies, not Vettel's in particular--that sparked the off-topic discussion that led to the creation of this thread:

I'd rather be the 10x undefeated WDC with rubbish teammates my whole career than the one or two time champion that is undefeated against 10 WDC teammates, anyway. You don't get to the top of the leaderboard by beating your teammate--you get there by beating everyone.

And in addition, the very third post in the thread, which makes it quite clear that this is not about specific drivers:

Ay, but this isn't about them as much as it's about YOU. Your career. Hypothetically. And then maybe them. Depending on where the thread goes. But it's not and won't be driver-versus-driver; you may be able to use them as examples providing your comments aren't made with the intention of inciting napalm wars, in which case the collective population of the thread will be allowed to bathe you in fire-retardant and then point and laugh. Capiche?

EDIT: To make myself clear, 'Senna was my hero, so I'd want a career like his' is okay. 'Senna was an unsportsmanlike donkey-hat and never deserved to win, so I wouldn't want to be like him' is not.

This is not about Vettel; it just happens to have had its origins in a thread about him. It's about racing in general and why people think the way they do when assessing drivers, which is why I invited people to put themselves in the position of a racing driver and decide which form of success they found more appealing. The question was intentionally open-ended to gain more insight into the thought processes behind people's decisions--what I really wanted to investigate/discuss with this thread. The poll itself, as per the OP, was an afterthought. Some people complied and justified their opinions (some quite compellingly so--kudos), others decided to reduce it to the partisan mudslinging that is the unfortunate but almost inevitable fate of many F1-related threads around here.

If you still don't believe that this is not about defending particular drivers, then I invite you to discuss my 'agenda' further with me over PM. I'd rather not have this discussion come to a gradual death with everyone bitter about how things transpired.

Now, back to the studio discussion.

[LewDaMan]

For all of you bandying around baseless accusations like this, I implore you to prove it.

Well, "UbiquitousPeas" (what a username!) has already proved it. In brutal fashion! The gracious thing to do now would be simply raise your hands and say "mea culpa."

The problem is that I don't think you understand (deliberately or not) the point about fixed choice polls that UbiquitousPeas (UP) has explained to you.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained it for you in the form of an example? Your poll would be like doing the following:

Q. Do you think that there will be a successful manned flight to Mars within the next 10 years?

Please choose an answer:

1) Yes
2) No

After the answers come in, borrowing your approach, it would be then like saying: "This was a little test and I held something back and no-one guessed what it was. The bit I held back was '...manned flight to Mars within the next 10 years...in a Citroen 2CV!' I can't believe none of you thought of that or worked that into the equation, so that tells me everything I need to know about those who voted yes and their attitudes to Space Travel and Citroen 2CVs. Next time you're asked that question, be more broad-minded!"

You can't use a fixed choice poll in that way. A fixed choice poll is just that. The respondents aren't asked to consider or allow for variables as the poll starter has deliberately excluded them. Fixed choice polls and open-ended polls are used for different things. What you've done is start a fixed choice poll and then tried to say you meant that it was an open ended one. After the results came in! You've shifted the goalposts for your own purposes. If you did such a thing with research in the real world, the research poll would be dismissed instantly as being invalid.

Here's a neat summary of what UP has being trying to explain to you:

http://www.answers.c...e-questionnaire

Hope that helps.
 

Seriously, do your worst--rifle through my posting history...

Why would or should anyone do that? You are being judged on the content of this thread, which you've confessed was a "little test" of your making. Therefore I'm not surprised, in the slightest, that you've attracted criticism.

[Afterburner]

I was going to respond to this via PM, but seeing as it does involve the topic, I'll do so here.

Well, "UbiquitousPeas" (what a username!) has already proved it. In brutal fashion! The gracious thing to do now would be simply raise your hands and say "mea culpa."

The problem is that I don't think you understand (deliberately or not) the point about fixed choice polls that UbiquitousPeas (UP) has explained to you.

Admittedly, I wasn't familiar with this use of the term 'fixed poll'--thanks for the link (I especially enjoyed the 'related questions' tab: "How do you get fixed?" ). I took it to understand that the poll was rigged in favour of a specific result, which it wasn't (and isn't--more on this below). However, while I feel this definition of a fixed poll does apply in this context, I will have you note a particular part of the definition provided:

A questionnaire in which the questions posed are accompanied by a range of answers from which each respondent is asked to indicate which answer, out of the fixed choices, best applies to them. Such questionnaires are useful in gathering data and standardizing responses, but there is a danger that none of the fixed-choice responses really applies to the respondent, and the researcher's own prejudices may be imposed on the respondent.

Firstly, the bit about voters selecting the choice which best applies to them is completely the point of this poll, and UP was incorrect in his (her?) assumption that the choices in this poll 'could not be up to the voter'--they can, and they are, as evidenced by posts above from the likes of TheUltimateWorrier et al--and also in their assumption that I set out to deliberately protect Vettel's legacy with this poll (even if that were my goal, I don't know why the f#%k I'd have gone about doing it this way--the poll results don't work in his favour). Agreed?

Secondly, while for the purposes of the thread I do not think this is an entirely useless approach in gathering mass opinion (and yes, I do notice the part at the end upon which you and UP have gone to great lengths to fixate ), I would like to stress that the poll was added to the topic almost as an afterthought, as a way to gauge the contributions of those who rather wouldn't post. I put a lot more stock in the opinions of those who voted and contributed a post which outlined their reasoning (thanks again for that, by the way, guys).

Though, I don't think your following example matches up with what's happened here in this thread:

Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained it for you in the form of an example? Your poll would be like doing the following:

Q. Do you think that there will be a successful manned flight to Mars within the next 10 years?

Please choose an answer:

1) Yes
2) No

After the answers come in, borrowing your approach, it would be then like saying: "This was a little test and I held something back and no-one guessed what it was. The bit I held back was '...manned flight to Mars within the next 10 years...in a Citroen 2CV!' I can't believe none of you thought of that or worked that into the equation, so that tells me everything I need to know about those who voted yes and their attitudes to Space Travel and Citroen 2CVs. Next time you're asked that question, be more broad-minded!"

You can't use a fixed choice poll in that way. A fixed choice poll is just that. The respondents aren't asked to consider or allow for variables as the poll starter has deliberately excluded them. Fixed choice polls and open-ended polls are used for different things. What you've done is start a fixed choice poll and then tried to say you meant that it was an open ended one. After the results came in! You've shifted the goalposts for your own purposes. If you did such a thing with research in the real world, the research poll would be dismissed instantly as being invalid.

There is a fundamental difference from this example and the poll in this thread: your example asks what people think, while this poll asks what people want and why they want it, and in the latter scenario I do think consideration of potential variables is important--this is a discussion first and foremost, not just a simple 'x or y' poll. However, if your point is to say that the poll itself is not necessarily be flawed, but that my conclusions are, then I might agree with you.

In the context of racing, however, I do feel that the realm of possibilities inherent within the two choices in this thread's poll is more or less implied based on the status of everyone here as a fan of racing. Would it be a fair question if you asked it of someone unfamiliar with racing? Absolutely not--but as we're all familiar with racing here, I think my above point about people not carefully considering the question was fair. After all, we're talking about judging someone as more or less the most successful/talented racing driver of all time--don't you think that requires a little more consideration than just a click-and-go?

Could it be considered a mea culpa on my part to assume that everyone would think their answers through before responding? Yes, definitely so, based on the dust-up that's gone on in the last few posts. But then again, the poll was mostly an afterthought anyway, even on my end--more debate might actually see me revisit my answer, believe it or not.

Some people who contributed to the thread proved that considerable thought went into their answers, though, with my favourite response of those being the one that cited the second option as preferable because it removed any doubt as to one's abilities as a driver. A very legitimate point in favour of the second option, as even in extreme cases a sizable element of public perception will always err on the side of caution when it comes to the respective capabilities of drivers' cars. I agree, and feel that this proves that the poll is not lopsided--there is plenty of merit to selecting both options.

(And as an aside, sadly, I don't think we'll see a successful manned flight to Mars in the next 10 years. But who knows? Maybe the Little Citroen That Could will find itself on the Angry Red Planet sooner rather than later. )

Why would or should anyone do that? You are being judged on the content of this thread, which you've confessed was a "little test" of your making. Therefore I'm not surprised, in the slightest, that you've attracted criticism.

Because in a lot of cases, especially on the internet, people are quick to rage rather than give others the benefit of the doubt. I'm not a perfect example of this, but as often as possible my stance is 'innocent until proven guilty'. I wish more people here would take this approach, and I think F1 threads here would be a bit nicer if this was the default assumption. I did not start this thread with the intent of discrediting certain drivers or bigging up others--I did it with the intent of voicing my opinion on what makes a driver great and learning what others felt about the same topic, perhaps with the ultimate effect of changing my opinion or that of others. There were some unintended consequences, but apart from this page (for which I will hold my hands up and say 'I f#%ked up', as I didn't think that post would create such a s&$t-storm), I think that the quality of discussion has been pretty good.

Thank you for your time and your considerate reply, though. I do appreciate that we all have better things to do than spend time on internet forums.

[MikeV1987]

Okay, having watched this thread boil on....

 

Great post.

[bourbon]

My post served to highlight the opposite.

 

Alonso's teammates were highly regarded before they went against Alonso. The way in which he beat the likes of G.F and Massa was most impressive, he pretty much destroyed the prior perception that both were top drivers (look at the polls I posted above to support that perception). A bit like how now people now say that Webber has always been a average driver, when from 2006-2010 he was a strong driver (which makes how Seb beating him impressive to say the least)

 

I disagree that Alonso's performances against Lewis are irrelevant because Lewis was a rookie.Yes, Lewis has improved since then as a overall driver. but 9-6 ahead in 2 car finishes supports that Alonso's race pace is strong. Even in Lewis's worst season of 2011, Lewis and Jenson tied 7-7 in 2 car finishes

 

I am not saying Alonso has the best teammate resume of the all-time greats, but I would suggest there is a argument that it is on par with Schumi's teammate resume. When you look at Alonso's overall career, there is not much to critique as a driver. Some campaigns are better than others, but he has always performed to a very high quality. I think there is a argument you could mention him among the names of Senna, Prost and Schumi.

 

Although I do think a 3 WDC would cement that perception, so you might have a point in there 

 

Understood, but I think we lost the topic a little.  I wasn't judging Alonso because I do not think that teammate battles hold any merit at all.  So the fact that I do not rate his teammates as highly as I rate Prost's means nothing at all to my opinion on his standing in the sport.  As I ended my last post, I do consider Alonso a fully deserving 2xWDC which speaks volumes in my book.  <---- that is the judgment.    

 

As for my other comments, they were to explain why I do not believe the teammate argument holds any merit.  Basically: 

 

1) I think it is far too subjective (which we proved in our varied viewpoints on Alonso/Hamilton 2007 and what it did for the driver's racing reputations); 

2) I think people are far too biased to make fair and reasonable judgments from pair to pair;

3) Despite teammates having the "same" car, the reality is that they are not identical or spec enough to make fair judgments;

4) Drivers cannot pick their teammates, so it is utterly harsh to hold them accountable on this score;

5) There does not seem to be any consensus as to what having a WDC teammate means.  A tough challenge is enough, win or lose?  What if it isn't tough?  How does losing to a WDC effect one's rep?  Winning?

6) The argument shifts in order to accommodate failure to meet the criteria (i.e., a teammate that turns out to be a WDC in the future counts)

7)  This is a new fangled made up criteria that nobody started talking about until the last few seasons.  I mean how ridiculous would a guy sound that responded to "Jim Clark was awesome" with "Yeah? Did he have any WDC teammates?" 

 

So for myself, I don't place any value in the WDC teammate argument.

Edited by bourbon, 07 May 2014 - 07:16.