You will have to excuse the dodgy formatting. I'll be using red text for this post so you will be able to easily find my comments--the board informed me that I had exceeded the number of allowed quote tags before making my post. My apologies in advance for the inconvenience (and to everyone else who remembers my liberal use of red text in the past
).
Vettel did it with a dominant car, Alonso did not, infact you will barely find anyone who reckons the 06 Renault was the best car, yet no one with a straight face will claim wasnt the fastest car by a mile. Vettel fans just need to accept that he has only won titles in a dominant car, unlike really great drivers.
And again, we're certain of the car's pace through what formula exactly? You people keep ranting on about how you know which car was the best and how, but I still haven't seen any logical methods which can applied to provide a conclusive answer for the pace of all the drivers...As if that proves anything at all?? It proves everything, and its one of the biggest reasons why Senna and Prost are rated so highly. A team mate is the only true benchmark a driver can have so it has a lot of value, proves a lot. How can you say Hamilton proved nothing by matching Alonso?? It proved he was a great driver. Losing to Button meant he had a poor season, but it does not erase what he proved in 2007. Vettel has yet to prove he can beat a quality top line team mate. Schumacher was also critisized for that by the way, but he made up for it by spending half his career without the best car.
(This is exactly the sort of bias I mentioned in one of my earlier posts. By your own admission, Button was not driving the best car last year, yet he still managed to secure a strong run of results and beat a 'rated WDC teammate'. The excuse? Exactly what I said it would be: "Oh, Hamilton had a bad year." How is it possible that what Hamilton did in 2007 is sufficient to prove his talent for the rest of his career? Would you really still rate him as a great driver if he had another season like 2011?
This is why we have a hard time taking opinions like yours seriously. If you don't rate Button even after he has filled your criteria, then there is absolutely no reason for us to believe you will rate Vettel either. This sort of double-standard is called 'hypocrisy'.)
This is no bias its the same criteria used against everyone else.
(As evidenced by the above quote, it clearly isn't.)
Very disputable that there were days he did not have the best car and prevailed. Just because he did not get pole, and had to struggle does not mean he does not have the best car. It could just mean he lost the car advantage he had.
(Again, where is this magic formula we have that can separate car pace from driver ability? 
)
There are two main criteria for a driver to prove themselves. The car, and team mate.
(According to who, exactly? People who think they can isolate the driver factor in a team sport? There are too many variables that prevent us from doing so, so this criteria is rendered invalid for use of concluding fact due to heavy subjective influence. You want to use it to form your own opinions? You're more than welcome to do so--but if you're going to do this, you have to apply the same standards for every driver, rather than cherry-picking outliers in order to create the ranking you want to see. You should also remember that this is only your opinion and it is important not to take it too seriously--in other words, don't confuse it with fact, as you have frequently done in your posts here.)
Hamilton and Alonso have won titles without dominant cars, while Vettel has not, so stop making up false facts.
(
The first part of your sentence contradicts the second part. The idea that Hamilton and Alonso's titles were not won in dominant cars is your opinion and cannot be proven as fact.)
Hamilton and Alonso have proved their class against top quality team mates,
(In the interest of asking, who exactly? Which 'top-quality' teammates did Alonso beat before racing against Hamilton? Hamilton is rated because he performed well against Alonso, who was relatively unproven before he raced Hamilton? By that logic, Buemi and Alguersuari could be the best two drivers ever to have raced. )
Vettel is being judged by the exact criteria everyone else is.
(No, he's being judged by your criteria in this case, which you are not applying to everyone evenly, as proved above.)
Some people like you cannot accept he fails to meet those criteria,
(After examining your posts, hopefully it isn't hard to see why.
)
To be honest, it depends on your character, most people like a fair fight for something to be interesting, a smaller minority don't care, a win is just a win to them, period.
So it's a character thing now, is it? For the record, we all want to see a fair fight, and I hate to break it to you, but each F1 season is a fair fight. Every team builds and races a car under the same rules. Sounds like a pretty level playing field, if you ask me. Naturally, there will be differences in car and driver pace, but these differences help us to see exactly what we're holding the competition for: who is best. May I repeat for the umpteenth time, if you still haven't read it yet: F1 is a team sport, and the drivers are not the only people who give a team success. F1 is made all the more remarkable when teams are close throughout the year, but the reason these battles are remarkable and special is because they are so rare. This 'smaller minority' you refer to are the ones who see F1 for what it really is, and understand that winning even with a 'dominant car' by a large margin is still just as fairly earned and valid as a win in a close fight. If you can't understand this, then I'm afraid you are the one who has no understanding of F1, not us.Monza 2008 was a good drive but like I said, Frentzen won races in a Jordan in 2009.
Er, what? You clearly know absolutely nothing about F1, if you think, it proves nothing to prove yourself without the best car, and against strong team mates.
(Fascinating. And here I was thinking that the reason we've been running in this thing all these years was to win the WDC and WCC. )
No its just objectively judging Vettel. something you are clearly unable to do, to the point of even denying Vettel has beenb flattered by great cars, and other drivers have not. The mere concept seems to offend you, despite being objectively used for decades in the sport, but if its used against little Vettel its unfair and double standards.
(What 'offends' us is your repeated assertion that your hypocritical judgment is valid. Other posters have come and gone suggesting that Vettel is not the best and have been received quite cordially, because they make it clear that it is just their opinion and don't take their opinions any more seriously than anyone else's.)
lol. He has had a free ride his entire career by redbull,
(You make it sound so easy. Speaking of bias...)
Yes brittle when the going gets tough,
(And this has never happened to Alonso or Hamilton, right? Not even at China '07, Brazil '07, or Abu Dhabi '10, right? 
)
Of course, its all subjective evaluation, just as saying Senna is one of the greatest of all time. It does not mean an educated evaluation cannot be reached.
(Actually, it does, for reasons I've already pointed out. There are too many variables in Formula One to accurately determine who the best driver is. You can come to whatever conclusion you want with whatever criteria you want, but if you do not consistently apply these criteria then you must not expect us to take your opinion seriously.)
I have to admitt Im a very good judge of drivers, for example I was 100% sure, Alonso would destroy Massa, while the majority of people thought it would be a battle (lol), and after half a season I was sure Hamilton was special, so I know what I am talking about.
(Your confidence in your perceived infallibility is quite amusing. May I remind you that pride often cometh before a fall.)
It is quite clear Vettel is very good, but I am still not convinced he is truly great, based on the reasons I mentioned. I still question his ability to be fast in anything other than a brilliant Newey chassis. He could be another Kimi, who needs a certain car to excel. I hope they finally get rid of Webber next year and put Vettel up against a real young talent.
(As others have pointed out, the likelihood of your opinion changing is not very high.)
Its funny because Im pretty much the only open minded one here who is actually not making any claims, other than its too early to judge Vettel, unlike everyone else who refuses to consider they could be wrong and to budge from their beliefs.
For full disclosure, I am a Vettel fan. I believe it is very likely that he is the fastest, most-talented driver on the grid at the moment. However, my opinion is not permanent and is prone to change should I feel it is contradictory to what reality indicates. As I said before, I will let the racing do the talking--Melbourne can't come soon enough.
Generalisations are a good way to make a lot of enemies in a short amount of time. The level of hypocrisy displayed in your request for others to have an open mind while you continue to maintain a narrow perspective, reinforced by your own contention that you "know what [you] are talking about", is staggering.
With all due respect, your argument is invalid.Beating a WDC is tosh on another level too ....
If you dont rate Vettel (who is a 2xWDC) , then basically you are saying is WDC is no biggie
... any tom dick or Vettel can be a WDC 
okay ! Now if the WDCs is no biggie then How can beating a WDC be any proof of greatness ??
Thats the circle people get themse;lves trapped into when they use selective criteria
Excellent point. 
This topic is locked
