24 replies to this topic

[Paul Parker]

Fancy an argument? I don't know if anybody has already tried this one but if not how about TNFer's opinions on who won the World Championship on pure merit and who won it by default or due to another driver's misfortunes, accidents or mechanical mishaps starting with 'Nino' Farina in 1950.

So I will stick my head above the parapet thus:
1950 Farina (should have been Fangio)
1956 Fangio (should have been Collins)
1958 Hawthorn (should have been Moss)
1959 Brabham (should have been Moss)
1960 Brabham (should have been Moss)
1961 Phil Hill (could have been von Trips)
1962 G. Hill (should have been Clark)
1964 Surtees (should have been Clark or G. Hill)
1967 Hulme (should have been Clark)
1968 G. Hill (should have been Stewart)
1972 Fittipaldi (should have been Stewart)
1974 Fittipaldi (should have been Lauda)
1976 Hunt (should have been Lauda)
1978 Andretti (should have been Peterson)
1979 Scheckter (should have been Villeneuve)
1982 Rosberg (should have been Pironi or Watson)
1983 Piquet (perhaps Prost)
1984 Lauda (should have been Prost)
1986 Prost (should have been Mansell or Piquet)
1987 Piquet (should have been Mansell)......................................................................and so on.

I've omitted the reasons why I think the above are valid as most will know the background to these championships. That's enough from me. Anybody want to comment?

[RTH]

1994 Schumacher ( Should have been Hill )

[WHITE]

2003 MS ( Should have been Raikonenn ? )

We could also argue that all those drivers that " should have been " got to that position due to someone else's misfortunes, accidents or mechanical mishaps so, lets leave things as they are.

[ensign14]

1950-7 Fangio
1958-61 Moss
1962-7 Clark
1968-73 Stewart
1974-7 Lauda
1978 Andretti
1979-81 Villeneuve (although there's an underrated case for Lafitte for 1981)
1982 Piquet
1983-5 Prost
1986-7 Mansell
1988-93 Senna
1994 someone not in a car with launch control (e.g. Hill)
1995-7 The Cheat
1998-2000 Hakkinen
2001-2 The Cheat
2003 Montoya
2004 TC
2005-6 Alonso

[caneparo]

I believe that all of the championships were well earned. Racing is exciting as it's always the track to decide the winner. The track is like the fate for old heroes, it decides the fortunes of the drivers. Few days ago I have been watching the 1982 Austrian Grand Prix and I saw how hard Keke Rosberg was trying to overtake De Angelis in the final laps. He wanted it so bad. Now how could I say he didn't merit the championship he is awarded?

[WHITE]

Originally posted by caneparo
I believe that all of the championships were well earned. Racing is exciting as it's always the track to decide the winner. The track is like the fate for old heroes, it decides the fortunes of the drivers. Few days ago I have been watching the 1982 Austrian Grand Prix and I saw how hard Keke Rosberg was trying to overtake De Angelis in the final laps. He wanted it so bad. Now how could I say he didn't merit the championship he is awarded?

[David Beard]

Originally posted by Paul Parker
1982 Rosberg (should have been Pironi or Watson)

I agree with everything except that one.
I often don't remember detail, just retain impressions. My recollection is that Keke was mighty impressive throughout that season, and one win was not a true reflection of his efforts. I think he deserved that championship.

[D-Type]

I've said this before.

The object of racing is to win. So the best racer should be the one who wins the most. ie World Champion is the driver with most wins, then with most seconds as a tie break, most thirds etc.

I once worked it all out, but the ones that come to mind are
Moss 1958
Andretti 1977

Then we could go a step further and move away from an annual champion to havinga reigning champion like boxing who can lose his title at any time. The simplest criterion would be 'Most wins etc in the last 365 days' Working that one out is a fascinating pastime for winter evenings or during the tedious parts of a modern GP.

[angst]

Originally posted by D-Type
I've said this before.

The object of racing is to win. So the best racer should be the one who wins the most. ie World Champion is the driver with most wins, then with most seconds as a tie break, most thirds etc.

I once worked it all out, but the ones that come to mind are
Moss 1958
Andretti 1977

Then we could go a step further and move away from an annual champion to havinga reigning champion like boxing who can lose his title at any time. The simplest criterion would be 'Most wins etc in the last 365 days' Working that one out is a fascinating pastime for winter evenings or during the tedious parts of a modern GP.

Either that or not have a WDC at all. Just Grands Prix. Is Nuvolari remembered any less highly because he didn't win the WDC at any time? Scrap the World Campionship I say. Just have a racing formula (called Formula 1) made up of Sporting and Technical Regulations, Grands Prix apllied for and nominated by the National ASMs and..... Bob's your Uncle. No more Bernie or CVC or whoever else.

[Collombin]

Originally posted by D-Type
I've said this before.

The object of racing is to win. So the best racer should be the one who wins the most. ie World Champion is the driver with most wins, then with most seconds as a tie break, most thirds etc.

I once worked it all out, but the ones that come to mind are
Moss 1958
Andretti 1977

I agreed with the sentiment, and did the exercise on another forum - unsurprisingly the big winners were Clark and Mansell, whilst Piquet lost all 3 titles, and Prost became a 5 time champion as a result of winning 3 new titles and losing 2 of his original titles.

It was notable that the 1980s champions would have been different in virtually every year, whilst for the last 15 years or so the winningest driver has been the official champion.

Of course, the trouble with applying new scoring systems retrospectively is that the drivers were only driving to the rules in place at the time - this wins system only gives Prost the 1983 championship over Piquet due to Nelson deliberately moving over for Patrese at Kyalami, which I assume he would not have done if the end result had been to throw the title away!

[ensign14]

Originally posted by angst


Either that or not have a WDC at all. Just Grands Prix. Is Nuvolari remembered any less highly because he didn't win the WDC at any time? Scrap the World Campionship I say. Just have a racing formula (called Formula 1) made up of Sporting and Technical Regulations, Grands Prix apllied for and nominated by the National ASMs and..... Bob's your Uncle. No more Bernie or CVC or whoever else.

Dammit, have you been reading my RC posts?

[KJJ]

Of course the title should go to the driver who wins the most races. So Moss to win in 1958. But why should he win in 1960. Presumably because he was sidelined after his Spa crash, but that was down to driver error, well the error of thinking vital bits wouldn't fall off Colin Chapman's cars. Much as I would like to see an Antipodean deprived of the title, I think you could make a better case for Stirling being the true 1961 Champion, when Ferrari's less than brilliant drivers had the advantage of a far superior car.

[ian senior]

Originally posted by D-Type

Then we could go a step further and move away from an annual champion to havinga reigning champion like boxing who can lose his title at any time. The simplest criterion would be 'Most wins etc in the last 365 days' Working that one out is a fascinating pastime for winter evenings or during the tedious parts of a modern GP.

If there must be a championship, then why not go for something like that? So simple it could work (except no-one likes simplicity these days).

[angst]

Originally posted by ensign14
Dammit, have you been reading my RC posts?

;)

It fits my own agenda particularly well. I don't like the obvious collusion between the commercial rights holder (whoever it might be at the moment) and the FIA (or, more particularly, the current President of the FIA). Get rid of the Championship and each event becomes just that. An event in it's own right, with it's own promoters and organisors.

[Mal9444]

Originally posted by KJJ
but that was down to driver error, well the error of thinking vital bits wouldn't fall off Colin Chapman's cars. .

Once when talking to the Great Man I mentioned looking over a Lotus abandoned out on the circuit but could not remember which bit had broken. 'If it was a Lotus, it could have been anything, old boy...' was the reply. Said with some feeling, after all these years.

[James Page]

Originally posted by Mal9444
Once when talking to the Great Man I mentioned looking over a Lotus abandoned out on the circuit but could not remember which bit had broken. 'If it was a Lotus, it could have been anything, old boy...' was the reply. Said with some feeling, after all these years.

Another good one was when Nigel Roebuck told Moss that he'd just picked up a vinyl audio recording of a V16 BRM.

"Surprised it ran long enough for them to record it," replied Stirling.

Sorry, that was a bit OT…

[Agnis]

I would like to see such list (nobody ever killed or seriously injured in racing accident, every driver retires when he wants it.

1950 Wimille
1951 Wimille
1952 Ascari
1953 Ascari
1954 Fangio
1955 Fangio
1956 Ascari
1957 Fangio
1958 Castellotti
1959 Brabham
1960 Brabham
1961 Collins
1962 G. Hill
1963 Clark
1964 Ricardo Rodriguez
1965 Clark
1966 Brabham
1967 Hulme
1968 Clark
1969 Stewart
1970 Clark
1971 Stewart
1972 Clark
1973 Stewart
1974 Fittipaldi
1975 Lauda
1976 Lauda
1977 Lauda
1978 Andretti
1979 Scheckter
1980 Jones
1981 Piquet
1982 Villeneuve
1983 Villeneuve
1984 Lauda
1985 Prost
1986 Prost
1987 Piquet
1988 Senna
1989 Prost
1990 Senna
1991 Senna
1992 Mansell
1993 Prost
1994 Senna
1995 Senna
1996 Senna
1997 Senna
1998 Hakkinen
1999 Schumacher
2000 Schumacher
2001 Schumacher
2002 Schumacher
2003 Schumacher
2004 Schumacher
2005 Montoya (not injured in tennis, keeps his lead over Raikkonen, earns No 1 status in McLaren)

[HDonaldCapps]

This is an evergreen topic if there ever was one....

Championships are more a convenience for promotion -- stringing together various events -- than anything else. While I find them a convienent structure upon which to hang a narrative, that is often all that they are when you begin to study them. The points table at the end may or may not reflect the season and may or may not reflect who the real shakes and movers are.

The tyranny that the cult of championships inflicts upon us a mentality that deadens our appreciation of the "eaches," if you will, of the series since the focus on the whole often pushes the piece parts off the table. Note how difficult it is to isolate, say, the RAC British Grand Prix (or whatever it is called these days) from all the other rounds in the formula one series. It is just another event, pretty much meaningless in and of itself.

Today you have the issue of long, nearly endless seasons which are fully intended to prevent driver interchanges, the real purpose for the way championships are conducted in recent days. And it is only the rare exception that allows drivers to not contest the full series.

I recently decided to undertake a look at a racing season and after a number of seasons were examined, I ended up choosing one I did not anticipate being the final choice, in part because there were events outside the various championships contested that particular season. Nor did I focus on the CSI world championship for drivers since it is, in my view at least, just another champonship, not the Alpha & Omega of All Existence.

Although my research capabilities are very restricted, it is has been a very pleasant experience to begin shaping the project and digging into a season that few probably pay much attention these days.

[Keir]

1968 should have been Amon !!

[HDonaldCapps]

Of course the title should go to the driver who wins the most races. So Moss to win in 1958. But why should he win in 1960. Presumably because he was sidelined after his Spa crash, but that was down to driver error, well the error of thinking vital bits wouldn't fall off Colin Chapman's cars. Much as I would like to see an Antipodean deprived of the title, I think you could make a better case for Stirling being the true 1961 Champion, when Ferrari's less than brilliant drivers had the advantage of a far superior car.

I seem to be spending a great of time taking exception to things these days, but here is another one that I have to question.

Yes, the 156 Dino was equipped with a more powerful engine than the little converted fire pumps the Brits wound up using, but the 156/61 could scarcely be considered a "far superior car" than the latest Lotus or Cooper offerings. Nor were the drivers on the Ferrari team "less than brilliant." This is a very selective reading of the season and how it unfolded.

[KJJ]

Just trying to enter into the spirit of the thread which started "Fancy an argument?".

As someone whose own driving is such that caravaners tend to get stuck behind me, I wouldn't really want to pass judgement on any racer. Mind you if we define Moss as brilliant then surely nearly everyone else falls into the "less than brilliant" category.

[Paul Parker]

Thank you all for responding to my original post.

My opinions were based partly upon being around and old enough to understand what was going on (1958 onwards) at the time and having the immediacy of period involvement. I would say that for instance Moss should and would have won all the championships from 1958-1962 inclusively had he enjoyed better luck, more reliable and/or quicker machinery and not suffered two catastrophic accidents.

By 1963 Clark was in my opinion as good as Stirling and he could have won every season up to and probably including 1969 had he survived and enjoyed a competitive car in '66 and more reliability in 1967. It is worthy of note that the Lotus 25/33 was undoubtedly a superior car in terms of chassis compared to its contemporaries and the Climax V8 always had a torque advantage over the BRM V8. JYS too stands out as a cut above all others in period and in fact he reached the winner's circle in F1 faster than Clark.

John Surtees undoubtedly suffered from the Prancing Horse obsession with sports car racing and his single championship, itself a lucky outcome, does not do him justice whereas arguably Graham Hill's results flatter him. Had Surtees (and indeed Gurney) enjoyed better machinery then Clark's omnipotence might have been dented here and there quite considerably. Also despite my listing I must admire Brabham who despite the enormous strain of running a team also managed to win two more championships, one for himself, a fantastic achievement and one not even remotely approached by any of the other driver/constructor combos then and subsequently.

I agree fully with Donald about the 1961 Ferrari team and drivers. The Dino was not the best of chassis and although they had realistically about 35-40bhp more than the 4 cylinder brigade it was none too clever otherwise. BRM's Tony Rudd who timed cars in sections around the circuits discovered that Clark's new Lotus 21 with its 4 cylinder FPF was actually quicker in a straight line at Zandvoort than the Ferraris. As for the Ferrari drivers Phil Hill is another whose GP stats let him down. He was much better than the results suggest and one musn't forget the first sub-9 minute lap at the full 14.3 mile Nurburgring that was achieved by Hill and although he was matched by von Trips at times, Hill was more consistent and far less likely to make mistakes. Ginther too merits mention even though his status was invariably No.2 or 3.

Post JYS and with sponsorship now in full swing driver supremacy gradually became more dependent upon the machinery and especially the tyres (lesser teams got the leftovers). It became harder to tell who was really the best and by the end of the 1970s and thereafter many potential winners found their F1 careers disappearing down the toilet. Senna's ascendancy during the 1980s along with Prost, Piquet and Mansell were obvious highpoints but by now F1 had become an endlessy repetitive cycle as posited by Donald.

Latter day F1 has become a creature of artifice and manipulation and it is no longer possible to make valid comparisons between drivers or even cars in the same team. I believe, and not for nostalgic reasons alone, that F1 has only continuity in its favour now. With the engine freeze regulations coming up and the alacrity with which technical innovation is stifled that F1 is rapidly approaching the point where its only raison d'etre is the huge revenue generated by TV, marketing and advertising.

Meanwhile these are only my personal opinions so please forgive the cynicism.

[KJJ]

Originally posted by Agnis
I would like to see such list (nobody ever killed or seriously injured in racing accident, every driver retires when he wants it.

This list is wrong, you've missed the Pryce years!

Back to 1961

Now I realise that practice times were not as important in 1961 as they are today but the fact remains that Ginther outqualified Moss 5 to 2 that season, with Moss only proving faster at the drivers' circuits - Monaco and the Ring. I'm willing to recant the "far" but how was that possible except in a faster car and one that was, of course, mechanically reliable as well?

[Alan Lewis]

Originally posted by D-Type
I've said this before.

The object of racing is to win. So the best racer should be the one who wins the most. ie World Champion is the driver with most wins, then with most seconds as a tie break, most thirds etc.

I once worked it all out, but the ones that come to mind are
Moss 1958
Andretti 1977...

We rose to this challenge in this thread...

http://forums.autosp...&threadid=61038

...post 31 onwards dishes the dirt.

APL

[Wolf]

Originally posted by KJJ
Just trying to enter into the spirit of the thread which started "Fancy an argument?".

As someone whose own driving is such that caravaners tend to get stuck behind me, I wouldn't really want to pass judgement on any racer. Mind you if we define Moss as brilliant then surely nearly everyone else falls into the "less than brilliant" category.

KJJ, I presumed Your wording was meant in the spirit of 'not as brilliant as Moss', but taken literally (as Don might've done) it does sound a bit belittling ('not very good'). A slight misunderstanding here at work, I guess.