26 replies to this topic

[gem]

Went through some threads and everybody has an obsession about winning on merit. What does that mean?
"Winning on merit" I bet this comes more from european fans.

It means winning without having to bend the rules? It means being so extraordinary that you don't even have a problem with anything? It means that you try your best and you make it?

Or is it you try your best and it happens to be the best, even if you bend some rules in the way? Rules that are worthless sometimes.

In a way I think merit is used in a wrong way, for me it is having the worth and the edge and character, esteem, honor. Nothing about silly rules involved. And who has all of that crap? Nobody of course.

Silly or not this is my thread.

[A Wheel Nut]

I declare this thread, posted on merit.

[santori]

It means you like the driver.

[Pumpkin]

On the BB merit means 2 things

1. As Santori said 'You like the driver'

2. 'He won without a lot of retirements in front of him'

[giacomo]

Winning "on merit" is a hollow phrase, usually utilized by fanboys who want to increase the value of their idol's achievments.

[Pioneer]

I'd say it roughly means that one won without benefitting from the unusual or uncharacteristic misfortune of others. It's a pretty loose term though and as you can tell from reading this BB, subject to a lot of abuse by biased fans.

[Wouter]

"Winning on merit" is often mentioned (in the context of cars, not drivers) as the difference between winning by outright speed in a race without being helped by major incidents, as opposed to winning by failure of faster competitors, or by luck/strategy in circumstances like pace cars/changeable weather/wild setup gambles.

At the moment, it seems that only Renault and Ferrari can truly win "on merit" by those criteria. The other teams pretty much need problems with those 2 teams and/or good luck/creative strategy (with pace cars, weather, setup,...) to beat them. Atleast until one manages to improve its own car sufficiently that it has the speed to defeat Renault or Ferrari in a "straight" fight.

[tifosi]

It's what santori said. Anytime a fanboys driver wins its "on merit".

[Imperial]

Surely (ignoring fanboys comments on "merit") that it's obvious what this means?

Example:

Driver A is leading the race comfortably for the whole race and for the last 20 laps he has a 50 second margin to Driver B.

Driver A suddenly has an absolutely 1 in 700 Million Billion Trillion component failure that suddenly ends his race one corner from the flag.

Driver B arrives on the scene some 50 seconds later and wins the race. That is not winning on merit.

Doing the exact opposite wouldbe winning on merit.

Not winning on merit is like saying "the best man was given the job", but only because the best interviewee suddenly had a heart attack on Sunday night, the evening before he was due to start his new job.

What's this "I bet this comes more from european fans" thing all about?

Do people only ever win on merit or vice versa, or whatever you're talking about (hard to tell...) outside of Europe?

I don't get what you mean by rules either? What has rules got to do with winning on merit?

Anyway, I can't think of a better explanation as to what it means than the one I have given.

[Cojayar]

Originally posted by gem
Went through some threads and everybody has an obsession about winning on merit. What does that mean?
"Winning on merit" I bet this comes more from european fans.

It means winning without having to bend the rules? It means being so extraordinary that you don't even have a problem with anything? It means that you try your best and you make it?

Or is it you try your best and it happens to be the best, even if you bend some rules in the way? Rules that are worthless sometimes.

In a way I think merit is used in a wrong way, for me it is having the worth and the edge and character, esteem, honor. Nothing about silly rules involved. And who has all of that crap? Nobody of course.

Silly or not this is my thread.

On merit, from meritocracy, or the rule of the most qualified. That means that the most qualified wins. In other words, the best wins. Do you agree that sometimes not the best driver wins? Lots of people seem to think so if you look at how many participate in the polls about the "best driver of the race".

BTW, I reccomend you to buy in Amazon a map of Europe. Burn it and feel good. Better than your crap of "I bet this comes more from european fans".

[Leyser]

Originally posted by santori
It means you like the driver.

i came in to write that.

[HoldenRT]

If we have a beer drinking contest and someone replaced your glass of beer with urine instead, did I win the contest on merit?

Jokes aside.. winning on merit in my opinion.. forget winning actually.. ANYTHING on merit means something that is repeatable because it was genuine and not influenced by luck factors.

Ralf Schumachers poduims in China 05, and Australia 06 were not on merit. If they ran they race again a week later he would have very little chance of repeating it. Alonso however would probably win again, hence "on merit".

The things that make things "on merit" or not are safety cars, crashes, reliability problems for other cars etc.

That's just my opinion. Since I have a feeling that this is topic is in relation to Ferrari and Renault the words might have taken on a completely different meaning to suit the agenda of the poster.

Things get quite fiesty when there are two teams closely contesting wins.

[Spunout]

Jokes aside.. winning on merit in my opinion.. forget winning actually.. ANYTHING on merit means something that is repeatable because it was genuine and not influenced by luck factors.

The fact that something isn´t "repeatable" doesn´t mean it was luck...

The things that make things "on merit" or not are safety cars, crashes, reliability problems for other cars etc.

I beg to differ. Motor racing isn´t all about speed. Safety cars may be luck, but reliability problems are not. What´s the difference between winning thanks to reliable car and winning thanks to fast car? Eg Alonso´s Imola win last year was on merit, because McLaren failed to bring reliable car. Yes it wasn´t Kimi´s fault, but races are won by the best package anyway. Now, if your package breaks down and fails to finish the race, no way you "deserve" the win. Similarly, if your opponent crashes from the lead (by his own doing), how can he "deserve" the win?

[Pioneer]

Well I dunno about others, but I specifically used the words unlikely or uncharacteristic in my attempt at a definition.

If you win because 1 guy in front of you breaks down, that's "on merit" to me... cause maybe it was you that pressured him and his car into failure. Winning because 5 or 6 guys in front of you break down is not "on merit."

[Spunout]

If you win because 1 guy in front of you breaks down, that's "on merit" to me... cause maybe it was you that pressured him and his car into failure. Winning because 5 or 6 guys in front of you break down is not "on merit."

So, if we assume those 5-6 guys in front of you retire because of A) poor reliability B) own mistake, then nobody won "on merit"?

To me this is rather strange, because in motor racing speed has no meaning if you cannot reach the checquered flag.

[jimm]

A whole thread on such a simple concept??

ON merit just means it was not a lucky win, that it was a, more or less, straight fight and the driver beat the other driver to a win or finsihed ahead or was on the podium.

Means one did not benefit from a bunch of guys dropping out, a large car advantage etc.

What qualifies for the above sometimes is subject to bias.

[Spunout]

ON merit just means it was not a lucky win, that it was a, more or less, straight fight and the driver beat the other driver to a win or finsihed ahead or was on the podium.

Why should it be "straight fight"? What if your opponents make mistakes? I cannot understand how somebody else screwing up means you did not win on merit...? That doesn´t sound fair to me.

I think you win on merit because even if you weren´t the fastest man on track, you were more consistent and carried out the number one objective of race car driver: bringing the car home.

Means one did not benefit from a bunch of guys dropping out, a large car advantage etc.

That would devalue most Schumi´s wins from 2004, and most wins taken with large car disadvantage.

[klover]

Originally posted by jimm


Means one did not benefit from a bunch of guys dropping out, a large car advantage etc.
[/B]

Actually winning thanks to a large car advantage is exactly a win on merit.

[baddog]

It means you finished the race in 1st place.

[jimm]

Originally posted by Spunout


Why should it be "straight fight"? What if your opponents make mistakes? I cannot understand how somebody else screwing up means you did not win on merit...? That doesn´t sound fair to me.

I think you win on merit because even if you weren´t the fastest man on track, you were more consistent and carried out the number one objective of race car driver: bringing the car home.



That would devalue most Schumi´s wins from 2004, and most wins taken with large car disadvantage.

If your opponent makes a mistake, is slower in an equalish car, you pressure them into a mistake...All this is merit

A back marker takes out the opponent, his car is unreliable, he is in a Minardi and your in a Ferrari...non of these is a straight fight and therefore hard to claim on merit.

BTW, the #1 objective of a race car driver is to WIN not just to finish. Quote from Mario Andretti "If a driver does not walk back to the pits 1 or 2 times a season with the wheel in his hand he is not trying hard enough"....Back to the thread topic

[jimm]

Originally posted by klover


Actually winning thanks to a large car advantage is exactly a win on merit.

Great...then all the people who finshed in front of MS last year when he had the bridgstones beat him on merit or equal terms.

Glad you cleared that up

[baddog]

Originally posted by jimm



Great...then all the people who finshed in front of MS last year when he had the bridgstones beat him on merit or equal terms.

"Merit" is not the same as "Equal Terms", not at all.

[Speed_A]

Every single win is on merit as the conditions (rules, track, weather) are the same for all.

[DaleCooper]

Originally posted by Speed_A
Every single win is on merit as the conditions (rules, track, weather) are the same for all.

How about one opponent ramming other off track, and winning that way?;)
Is that also on "merit" ?

Cooper

[Leyser]

Originally posted by DaleCooper



How about one opponent ramming other off track, and winning that way?;)
Is that also on "merit" ?

Cooper

As long the FIA says it's OK?;)

[Speed_A]

Originally posted by DaleCooper



How about one opponent ramming other off track, and winning that way?;)
Is that also on "merit" ?

Cooper

No, of course it isn't.
Maybe I should extend my words: every single win is on merit, if played by the rules.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by Speed_A
No, of course it isn't.
Maybe I should extend my words: every single win is on merit, if played by the rules.

I think this "winning on merit" talk started from Ron Dennis years ago. And it seems to hinder McLaren a bit because their wins hang the most on merit. Fluke wins are rare in that camp, they can win only if the car is best.

What wouldn't be a merited win? Well if someone's tyre suddendly blows in front. Or backmarker takes the leader out. Or multiple safety cars turning the pack upside down. Or things like this.