71 replies to this topic

[Kvadrat]

I think today's points importancy is one of bricks in the wall between former World Drivers Championship and present Formula One series. Everybody in Formula One appreciates every single point. Points determine performance. But when did they start to care for points?

I didn't read much publications from the fifties, but think winning was the only aim for best drivers and teams. Privateers and other outsiders tried to set best possible result not for points, but for result itsetf. Every race was event on its own, not a stage in points chase.

I read Rob Walker's articles from 1976 R&T. He never mentioned points. In 1985, however, points were sometimes mentioned in Motor reports.

Was it Prost, who first started points calculations right from the beginning of the championship and got Professor nickname? He could sacrifice battle for lead for second place's 6 points.

[Ray Bell]

Well, we know for sure it wasn't Prost and that wasn't the reason he was dubbed 'The Professor'...

Sure, that was to do with his methodical ways and his willingness to settle for certain points rather than take a risk on winning. But he certainly wasn't the first to do that.

Going back to the fifties, there must have been talk about the Championship. Moss, for instance, talks about recognising that it wasn't the be all end all after losing to Hawthorn in 1958. And while he put that in print in 1963 (All But My Life), the thought dated back to Morocco.

So, if that was the case, the quest for the title must have been on at least some minds in 1958. And the Ferrari team's actions in that very race at Morocco prove it too... they got Phil Hill to slow so that Hawthorn could get the needed points. Not that the pit signals from Vanwall to Moss were devoid of that thought, keeping Moss advised of Hawthorn's position.

Then there was the selfless action of Peter Collins at Monza in 1956. That was taken to ensure that Fangio got the points he needed to close his fourth title.

So it seems that even if there was less emphasis on the championship and the points, there certainly was some emphasis on them.

[Vitesse2]

It can be argued that both Mercedes and Auto Union were manipulating results in 1939 in order to favour particular drivers in the European Championship.

[D-Type]

There are really two issues here: How championships were viewed and the value of points as such.

There may have been a greater emphasis on races rather than championships but that doesn't mean that people weren't interested in winning a Championship. Witness Richard Seaman persuading Hans Ruesch to enter his Alfa Romeo in the Donington GP in 1936(?) so he could share the drive and gain points for the BRDC Gold Star.

As to points themselves and positions lower down the ranking, being naturally competitive people still wanted to beat the opposition at their level. But points took on greater significance when they were used for a purpose other than to determine the outcome of a championship. At one time gaining a single championship point made a driver become a 'Graded Driver' which meant he could gain entries in international races more readily and presumably command more starting money. This was particularly important when race organisers could choose which entries they would accept. The other occasion where points began to matter dates back to the early days of FOCA. FOCA organised charter flights and other travel arrangements to remote races (eg S Africa and the Americas). The criterion they used for eligibility was manufacturers' championship points, so points gained by back of the field runners suddenly became far more important. This has now been extended to cover shares of TV funding and other prize money (if what I read about the Concord Agreement is correct).

[ensign14]

Back in 1916 (I think) Johnny Aitken and Dario Resta both tried car-hopping in order to get points towards the inaugural US national championship. In the end they both managed not to get points for doing so, which gave Resta the title.

[Wolf]

I know some will think me stupid for asking this, but I cannot but to wonder whether in years prior to Big Bang (year 1950 of Our Lord, for those who know nothing about F1/GP stats ) there were instances where serious motorsport publications tried to make a tally of a season gone by and say "look here, the best driver of the year was Wimille/Fangio/whoever because..., and if we had championship of a sort, of a truth, he'd have been champion..."

[ensign14]

Wolf, it's not a stupid question because the notion of points is odd in itself. And you have to look to see what other championships there were before 1950 - or even today.

There is no "World Championship" for athletics, for example, the World Champ is decided on a one-off basis. Golf and tennis work around majors or world rankings that do not really recognize years.

Before the war about the only lengthy championships there were were in football or cricket - and that's only cos you could not get everyone playing at the same time. The Football League was created cos Villa whinged that their season was always over in September when knocked out of the FA Cup (this is not mere Bluenose cavil, this is the absolute truth). And even then cricket was simpler in not giving points for draws.

So there was no tradition of doing so at world level, and still is not with many "individual" sports. Why should a magazine bother doing so when the "major" events were obvious? And to the writer/spectator the best driver was also "obvious" depending on perspective? And did anyone think of a World Sportscar Drivers' Title before 1981? Probably seen as more of a team event...too random when Brian Redman could be with Seppi in one race and Kinnunen in another &c...

Then again, there was the example of AAA, and no-one applied it to European racing. Any reason why not? And the BRDC Gold Star champioonships, which are seen as highly important in the Bira/Chula books. And there were the abortive attempts in the 20s and 30s with scoring systems just as illogical as any other. So it is indeed interesting why no-one took the BRDC idea or the AAA idea or the Manufacturer World Champ idea and apply it to the big races. Maybe the definition of a qualifying race was too fluid. And maybe the difficulties in getting info across the Continent fudged things. But my guess is that the races themselves were seen as important and melding into one overall event was considered otiose.

[ian senior]

The notion of those who score maximum points being declared champion may well be on its way out, if rugby is anything to go by. It's not a sport I follow closely, but I think I'm right in saying that in the current incarnation of rugby union in the UK, the team finishing top of the table at the end of the season (by virtue of having the most points) is not declared champion- they have to undergo a "play-off" system with other teams. Of course, it's all just a way to eke things out and make more money, but it seems that if you bust a gut and get the best results you are still not officially the best team in the country.

Perhaps there should be a system that rewards the most wins, and forget all about points.

[petefenelon]

I've always disliked points and felt that if you must have a champion then that champion should be determined by "medal tally" - the guy who wins the most races is the champion, if there's a tie on that, count back other places until you resolve it.

Prost I felt played the system perfectly; I don't think any less of him for it. The current points system positively deters people from trying to take places with consolation prizes for virtually everyone who's still grumbling around and decreased differentials....

I think the idea of racing for points really became important when the individual races started to become less important than the title as a whole. There's maybe 4 or 5 "special" Grands Prix these days - the guy who wins at Monaco, Spa, Monza, Suzuka is someone special, but the other circuits? Is a win at Tilkedrome X and a third at Tilkedrome Y any different to two seconds? No.... oh well, don't bother pushing for the win then ;)

[Vitesse2]

The BRDC Gold Star scoring system was almost as arcane as the European Championship. You scored different points depending on whether the race was a National or International event and what cars ran in it. I get the impression that only Seaman, Bira, Mays and a few others actually cared about it. In addition to the Road Star there was the Track Star for Brooklands races, but I don't think anyone busted a gut to win that.

Re rugby: in its previous incarnation as a winter game, Rugby League had a knockout competition between the top 16 clubs. That was before they split into two divisions, when I think it became just the top eight from Division One.

And don't forget that before a national league structure was evolved for Rugby Union there were unofficial merit tables: the Sunday Telegraph maintained several tables - English, Scottish, Welsh and Anglo-Welsh IIRC. I've seen similar tables produced in the 40s for motor racing, but of course it all depends on what races you count and what scoring system you use.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Vitesse2
The BRDC Gold Star scoring system was almost as arcane as the European Championship. You scored different points depending on whether the race was a National or International event and what cars ran in it. I get the impression that only Seaman, Bira, Mays and a few others actually cared about it.....

Isn't that the one that brought Franky out of open wheel retirement to do two or three races?

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Kvadrat
Was it Prost, who first started points calculations right from the beginning of the championship and got Professor nickname? He could sacrifice battle for lead for second place's 6 points.

I've always thought that Jackie Stewart was the first to drive for the world championship throughout the season. Emerson Fittipaldi was also driving that way by 1974 as was virtually the entire sharp end of the field within a year or two, Ronnie Peterson being a rare exception. This is part of the reason why Gilles Villeneuve's attitude was so refreshing.

[philippe charuest]

i thinq that they always did care about the point ,since theres a point system anyway (1950 for the f1 1958 for the constructor cup), maybe not in the early part of the season .but at the end of the season if the standing is close they drive accordingly . even Villeneuve in 79 in italy to help Sheckter.i thinq in some way it was even worst in the fifties when the first drivers were taking the car of the second or third driver of the team in the midlle of the race if they had some problem with there own car

[David McKinney]

I'm 100% with Roger on this
Stewart was the first person I thought at the time was driving for points rather than race wins, and Fittipaldi one who seemed to base his whole season on that approach

[angst]

Originally posted by Wolf
I know some will think me stupid for asking this, but I cannot but to wonder whether in years prior to Big Bang (year 1950 of Our Lord, for those who know nothing about F1/GP stats ) there were instances where serious motorsport publications tried to make a tally of a season gone by and say "look here, the best driver of the year was Wimille/Fangio/whoever because..., and if we had championship of a sort, of a truth, he'd have been champion..."

Reading 'Ferrari - A Life', there is mention of a printed list of Italian drivers and their winnings from the year (I think, from memory, that Materassi had earned the most, with Nuvolari and Varzi close by) - and that would probably have been the 'fairest' way of arranging any championship - as it would reflect, to an extent, the importance or otherwise of the events entered.

[Wolf]

Originally posted by angst


Reading 'Ferrari - A Life', there is mention of a printed list of Italian drivers and their winnings from the year (I think, from memory, that Materassi had earned the most, with Nuvolari and Varzi close by) - and that would probably have been the 'fairest' way of arranging any championship - as it would reflect, to an extent, the importance or otherwise of the events entered.

Angst- definitely not of much use today... Villeneuve the Lesser would've been vice-champion all through his BAR years.

[D-Type]

Wolf,

It says 'Winnings' not 'Earnings'

These days 'Winnings' are buried in the secrecy of the Concorde Agreement so it wouldn't be possible to produce such a list

But, back on the main topic, we don't know how points determine how much a team's share of the kitty is as this is also in the secret Concorde Agreement. We suspect they do, but don't really know how much.

[HDonaldCapps]

When the F1CA (FOCA) made points and standings in the points list a factor in who got taken care of by the now important organization, something with occurred in the late-1960s/early-1970s, which coincided with the new approach of Stewart and Fittipaldi to racing -- more drivers now running almost exclusvely in GP/F1. Just an opinion.

[Kvadrat]

I didn't mean championship decisive points. I meant that today it's all about points. Last weekend, Ron Dennis admitted team's risky desicion to go on for win and not to change the wheel. But at least for last two decades teams and drivers prefer to get points rather than push hard for win. Today it's all about pionts.

Here are quotes from recent Autosport-Atlas magazine (Vol 11, Issue 20, May 18 2005).

He is the diametric opposite of Juan Cruz Alvarez who, when asked what he hoped for from his season, in the GP2 television interviews at the launch, said: "lots of girls, and maybe a few points ."

Lopez is small and friendly, always ready to talk when asked, but beneath his amiable facade resides an intense racing personality that was entirely unable to forgive him after the previous race for making a small but vital mistake, which lost him points in the Championship.

On Sunday afternoon, though, he had found a way to absolve himself, to expunge the anger and allow himself to enjoy the moment, as well as pushing himself back up the points table.

Should neither driver suffer reliability issues, they will be looking for a double points finish, but getting on the podium will be tough without progress from Bridgestone.

Rough luck in Spain has costs points - and a podium in Spain - so a change of fortune could be overdue.

Heidfeld has never had a Monaco really worth remembering, but until now, he has always tackled it in a Sauber or a Jordan; he is another driver who won there in F3 and F3000, so it will be interesting to see what he can do with a better machine: improved qualifying and solid racing should give him a chance to land some points .

Objectives: finish with both cars in the points .

Objectives: qualify in the top ten; score points - beat Williams.

Red Bull continue to confound their critics as the season wears on, scoring points whenever the major players have dropped them.

The Scot must be looking for an opportunity to show what he can still do at one of his favourite circuits: another points finish has to be on the cards.

Objectives: qualify in the top ten, score points . Beat Sauber.

Objectives: two points finishes, podium. Race win unlikely, but possible.

If there are few finishers, or it rains, then Jordan can reasonably look for minor points .

Unsatisfied with sixth, Lauda threw all caution overboard and drove like a madman in order to gain a few points more.


Also, they referred to points in historical articles:

As it turned out, Perdisa got the better of the bargain and given all the attrition finished third in the No. 34 Maserati 250F, which was Behra's original car, scoring points on a shared basis with Behra in Perdisa's very first Grand Prix.

In 1936, he had scored no points but was a member of the Mercedes-Benz team, driving a Mercedes-Benz W25E, along with the likes of Rudolf Caracciola, Luigi Fagioli and Manfred von Brauchitsch.

Then Winkelhock headed into the pits for a lengthy stop, which put Rosberg into the points .

Unsatisfied with sixth, Lauda threw all caution overboard and drove like a madman in order to gain a few points more.

Journalists think that in the past point were important like today, and drivers cared for points like today. May be quoted Wilkenhock and Lauda already cared for points, but I'm sure Perdisa, Behra and Fagioli (in 1936) didn't. And I want to find out when did they start to care for points.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Kvadrat
[I]He is the diametric opposite of Juan Cruz Alvarez who, when asked what he hoped for from his season, in the GP2 television interviews at the launch, said: "lots of girls, and maybe a few points."

He has his priorities right.

[roger_valentine]

You have a point, Kvadrat, (well, several, actually), but in nearly all of these examples, surely 'points' is being used simply as a euphamism for 'pretty good result' just as 'podium' is used as a euphamism for 'very good result'. That doesn't mean that points are an end in themselves, just a shorthand way of saying 'it's nice to finish somewhere near the front'.


Re. the Kimi incident in the European GP (discussed endlessly in Racing Comments, and not really appropriate here), I really thought this was a good old fashioned example of a driver going for the win rather than 'playing it safe' to pick up some points. But sadly, I believe Kimi commented later that he carried on because he really needed to score more points that Alonso. Shame.

[Kvadrat]

Originally posted by roger_valentine
Re. the Kimi incident in the European GP (discussed endlessly in Racing Comments, and not really appropriate here), I really thought this was a good old fashioned example of a driver going for the win rather than 'playing it safe' to pick up some points.

I thought the same way and liked it.

[Kvadrat]

Today I watched 1976 British Grand Prix review on Motorfilms Quarterly Vol. 3. After the race journalist asked winner James Hunt: "James, how much does this victory mean for you?" - "9 points, 20,000 dollars and a lot of happiness". In 1976 he cared for points.

[Stephen W]

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
When the F1CA (FOCA) made points and standings in the points list a factor in who got taken care of by the now important organization, something with occurred in the late-1960s/early-1970s, which coincided with the new approach of Stewart and Fittipaldi to racing -- more drivers now running almost exclusvely in GP/F1. Just an opinion.

I think the problem was the sponsors. When drivers were signed up for huge amounts of money even then, the sponsor didn't want them crashing in some insignificant race and ruining their chances of publicity. They wanted their pound of flesh!

No, if you want to blame someone for the F1 drivers ceasing to run in supporting races and such like then I would suggest Colin Chapman.

On the question of when points became important then I would suggest 1947 as the year that the tide began to turn. For it was then that National Championship in the UK started to take off. These were decided on points awarded at each round with either the driver with the most points or the driver with the best 6 out of 10 results for example would be the winner.

[Penword]

I think certain races will always have a particular allure that puts them above the "points system", but those are growing fewer and farther between.

I would say a victory at Monaco has always meant something, perhaps Monza as well. When the German GP was held at the Nurburgring I would argue winning there meant as much as being World Champion. Remember, before the current level of media saturation Monaco and Nurburgring were the sort of F1 events that would generate mainstream media attention.

I think the number of races in a season is a factor. When a season consisted of only 6-10 rounds, each race was a very big deal. And with a limited number of opportunities to score points, winning the race meant a lot in terms of both points and prestige. Now, with 16, 17 or 18 races making up a season, it's easy for one race to seem like any other. What's the big deal if you win at Malaysia or Istanbul? Nobody really cares.

The current point system doesn't help matters. A difference of two points between winning and finishing second is essentially meaningless. They had it right when they increased the total for a race win to 10 points and left the rest at 6-4-3-2-1. I wonder if Michael would have sat behind Alonso at Imola last spring if there was a four-point swing on the line?

I remember a few years ago when David Coulthard won the German GP he commented on how happy he was because he'd won the four biggest F1 races in his career -- Monaco, England, Germany and Italy. It was nice to hear that sort of perspective.

[Milan Fistonic]

I've just come across Denis Jenkinson's thoughts on the subject in an Eoin Young column from 1993.


The media really only became points-conscious when Stirling became a contender after Fangio had retired. We always knew who the champion was. It was nothing to do with winning races. It was the way he drove and how he conducted himself.

[giacomo]

Originally posted by Kvadrat
Was it Prost, who first started points calculations right from the beginning of the championship and got Professor nickname? He could sacrifice battle for lead for second place's 6 points.

Alain Prost learned this craft in 1984, when he was beaten by his teammate Niki Lauda by the margin of only 0.5 points.
Prost lost the title, although he outqualified Lauda in all but one races and although he won 7 races (a record then) against Laudas only 5 race wins.

[giacomo]

Originally posted by Milan Fistonic
The media really only became points-conscious when Stirling became a contender after Fangio had retired. We always knew who the champion was. It was nothing to do with winning races. It was the way he drove and how he conducted himself.

So who was the true champion in 1951 - apart from the point situation?

Juan Manuel Fangio or Alberto Ascari?

[David McKinney]

Why on earth might it have been Ascari?

[giacomo]

Originally posted by David McKinney
Why on earth might it have been Ascari?

To make my question more precise: Did Fangio really drive better than Ascari and did Fangio really concuct himself better than Ascari?

Because the claim was, that points only became important and interesting after Fangios retirement.

[David McKinney]

Originally posted by giacomo
To make my question more precise: Did Fangio really drive better than Ascari and did Fangio really concuct himself better than Ascari?

I know nothing to suggest otherwise

[mctshirt]

I've just finished reading Challenge Me The Race by Mike Hawthorn and there seems to be an awareness of the points situation in F1 and the constructors championship in sportscars by Ferrari and the drivers. Of course the aim of every race did seem to be to go as fast as possible to win rather than point gathering in the fifties. I did find it interesting that team orders, pit stop strategy and a driver safety lobby were part of the scene albeit in a rather gentlemanly fashion. I found it a very informative and entertaining read.

[Kvadrat]

Did Hawthorn somehow describe championship situation at the end of each season? Today, it's normal to say that drivers arrived at last race having so and so points. Did he ever mention points?

[Roger Clark]

In the 1950s, Autosport would often report the points position after a race. 1956 was the first year that I can recall speculation about the outcome, when they published an article a week before the Italian Grand Prix saying what Fangio, Moss and Collins each had to do to win the championship. Of course, in most years before that there was little doubt who would be champion, so such speculation would be pointless. However, even in 1951 there was no discussion of the possibilities before the Spanish race, merely a note that Fangio led Ascari by two points.

I said earlier in this thread that I thought Stewart was the first to drive for the championship rather than for individual races, and I still think that was the case. There is no doubt that Hawthorn drove for second place in Morocco 1958, but I think that was the only example. It may be interesting to speculate whether he would have tried to beat Moss in that last race if the Ferrari had been able to challenge the Vanwall. I am sure that the majority of championship contenders from the seventies onwards would have settled for second place and the championship, nor that Moss would have tried to beat Hawthorn if the championship positions had been reversed.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Roger Clark
In the 1950s, Autosport would often report the points position after a race. 1956 was the first year that I can recall speculation about the outcome, when they published an article a week before the Italian Grand Prix saying what Fangio, Moss and Collins each had to do to win the championship.

Interesting, given that Moss could not win the title. Behra could, though.

[Roger Clark]

In fairness to Autosport, they didn't mention Moss. My memory was at fault. They didn't mention Behra either; are you sure he could have won?

[Kvadrat]

Originally posted by Roger Clark
In the 1950s, Autosport would often report the points position after a race. 1956 was the first year that I can recall speculation about the outcome, when they published an article a week before the Italian Grand Prix saying what Fangio, Moss and Collins each had to do to win the championship.

In 1956, was there discussions on what could happen if Collins didn't give his car to Fangio in Monza?

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Kvadrat


In 1956, was there discussions on what could happen if Collins didn't give his car to Fangio in Monza?

From the race report:

"A fine example of sportsmanship was set by Peter Collins. Fangio's car had been in the pits for some time with a broken steering arm. Portago's machine was also hors de combat; there was no question of pulling in Musso (who had already refused to hand over anyway!), and Castellotti, in Fangio's repaired car, was far behind. Pete came in for a quick tyre change, when he was in third place, about 70 seconds behind, and with a reasonable chance of winning the world championship. Amarotti, Ferrari's technical chief, suggested that Fangio should take over. The Argentinian also wanted to do so, in order to make absolutely certain of the championship, and to try to catch Moss. Peter, with a cheery grin, waved Fangio into the seat, saying that he was perfectly content to wait until another year."

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Roger Clark
In fairness to Autosport, they didn't mention Moss. My memory was at fault. They didn't mention Behra either; are you sure he could have won?

Going into Monza Fangio was on 30, Collins and Behra on 22, Moss on 19. He could have caught up - although I'm not certain of the tie breaker in those days, was it wins or next best result?

[Wolf]

Kvadrat- as one can see from Roger's post, I don't think nothing would've happened. Musso refused, and AFAIK suffered no consequences.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I was under the impreesion wins (and championships) was what counted in the early years. But nowdays a single point can make more than any championship could be 'worth' in those years. Other than that "single point", I think points are still something that is added up to make a champion. 15 or 75 points is irrelevant, it's the first (for smaller teams) and the last one (that determines the champ) that matter.

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by ensign14
Going into Monza Fangio was on 30, Collins and Behra on 22, Moss on 19. He could have caught up - although I'm not certain of the tie breaker in those days, was it wins or next best result?

Only the best five results counted, so Behra couldn't have improved to more than 27 points, dropping one of his third places.

I'm sure we've discussed this before, but how many points did Fangio get for Monaco? He finished third and fifth.

[ensign14]

He seems to have got 3 for second.

BTW, driver sharing sucked. How could that be fair? You're trotting along, getting tired out at the end of a 3 hour race, when suddenly you have a fresh driver catching you hand over fist.

[Rob29]

Originally posted by ensign14
He seems to have got 3 for second.

BTW, driver sharing sucked. How could that be fair? You're trotting along, getting tired out at the end of a 3 hour race, when suddenly you have a fresh driver catching you hand over fist.

Thats not the way it worked in practice. #1 driver falls out early,so he takes over (slower)team mates car.I think a rule that a driver could only score in one car per race was hastily introduced after the 1955 104F Argentine GP!

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by ensign14
He seems to have got 3 for second.

BTW, driver sharing sucked. How could that be fair? You're trotting along, getting tired out at the end of a 3 hour race, when suddenly you have a fresh driver catching you hand over fist.

Plus one for fastest lap? Sheldon gives him five and a half.

[Kvadrat]

In 1960, Motor Sport complained about "..."points chasing" that has bogged down Grand Prix racing these last two years".



So it started as early as in 1958 for British observers.

[Geoff E]

So it started as early as in 1958 for British observers ...

... coinciding with the start of the Constructors' Championship. http://en.wikipedia......rs'_Champions

[sbrinley]

... coinciding with the start of the Constructors' Championship. http://en.wikipedia......rs'_Champions

Indeed, 1958 was the first GP championship I can recall in which the winning driver won only one race. I found it hard to believe at the time, but when you added up the points, Hawthorn had the most (albeit with a crucial boost from Phil Hill in the last race) points. Maybe an argument for consistency over sheer ability.

[ensign14]

Even ignoring Hill's team driving Hawthorn had more points than Moss - he had to drop several, otherwise the title would have been his at Monza.

[sbrinley]

Even ignoring Hill's team driving Hawthorn had more points than Moss - he had to drop several, otherwise the title would have been his at Monza.

Yes, one more point, thanks to Hill's muffing a shift purposely at Casablanca to let Hawthorn get 2nd place.

[Tim Murray]

Hawthorn scored eight more points than Moss. It was only the arbitrary restriction on races counting for the final total that reduced his winning margin to one point.

Edited by Tim Murray, 21 April 2011 - 18:58.