Most unworthy f1 champion?

[Halmyre]

In 1965 Jim Clark took part in 59 races. He began the year by winning the seven-race Tasman Series, taking four wins in the process. He then won the F1 World Championship (six wins from nine races entered), taking time out (and missing the Monaco GP) to win the Indianapolis 500. Along the way he took part in another four non-championship F1 races (winning two of them) and won the four-race Trophees de France Formula 2 championship.

[Eric Mc]

But he was an unworthy champion in some people's minds!

[Schermerhorn]

itdontgo said:

el stovey said:

And deliberately took out Damon Hill.

Jesus it was 20 years ago let it go!

The FIA did everything they could that year to stop Schumacher winning. How many races was he banned for again? It was a joke.

For what it's worth, I don't think Schumacher did anything in Adelaide in 1994. In my opinion he tried to take the racing line back after colliding with the wall. Damon was unsighted and hit the side of him. You can't 'plan' something like that.

1997 Jerez though......what a ruthless bd he was. Pure legend.

[slipstream 1985]

Halmyre said:

FourWheelDrift said:

wibble cb said:

unworthy = least successful, while still winning the title, Rosberg snr?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keke_Rosberg#The_shar...

only 1 win all year, but enough for the title.

I don't think there is ever an unworthy champion but he certainly lucked into it in 1982.

Ferrari should have won in 1982 but Villenevue was killed at Zolder and the runner-up in 1982 Didier Pironi never raced in the last 5 GPs due to near fatal collision with Prost's Renault in heavy rain at Hockenheim.

Speaking of lucking into it - James Hunt. (ducks for cover)

I totally agree with you. Was going to have it on the first post but thought better of it until i judged how the discussion would go.

[AreOut]

Schermerhorn said:

For what it's worth, I don't think Schumacher did anything in Adelaide in 1994. In my opinion he tried to take the racing line back after colliding with the wall. Damon was unsighted and hit the side of him. You can't 'plan' something like that.

lol it was more than obvious

also he was banned for a reason and he and whole Benetton should be banned both in 1994 and 1995 with their electronic shenanigans

some evasions of rules happened before too but never on that level, Briatore and him started the era of distrust in F1

[EskimoArapaho]

Schermerhorn said:

The FIA did everything they could that year to stop Schumacher winning. How many races was he banned for again? It was a joke.

Ignoring a black flag is not a joke. Ever.

[SpeckledJim]

Corpulent Tosser said:

AreOut said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

There are no unworthy F1 Champions, each beat whatever competition was against them over a season.

hah, this season proved more than ever that there are times when you only have to beat your team colleague, and in case of msc and vettel sometimes not even them...

Some seasons that is the case, but the best teams are unlikely to hire anything but the best available drivers, or at least those perceived as the best.

But there's perhaps 1% between the top 6 drivers and 3% between the top 3 cars/teams.

Often it's a 50/50 team-mate battle for the championship and the better of the two drivers wins it, to the exclusion of the other 4-6 top drivers stuck in that year's slower cars.

[Mr_Thyroid]

Eric Mc said:

Mr_Thyroid said:

I can't help thinking that back in the 50s when there were less than 10 races they are only really like half championships.

I just noticed this comment. How crass.

The motor racing world was very different back then. Apart from the cars and circuits being far more dangerous then they are today, the drivers actually took part in as many Grand Prix and F1 races as they do today - it's just that not all the races run to F1 rules were allowed to count for championship points.

And, as well as that, the drivers usually raced in other categories as well. Stirling Moss participated in 60 races in his last full season (1961).

What you say only backs up my point.

"More dangerous" - more opportunities for injury, missed races and the wrong champion.

"Took part in as many races" - and yet only 6-or-so counted - ask any statistician if a sample size of 6 is adequate to judge anything.

[Europa1]

EskimoArapaho said:

Schermerhorn said:

The FIA did everything they could that year to stop Schumacher winning. How many races was he banned for again? It was a joke.

Ignoring a black flag is not a joke. Ever.

Cannot agree more. Racing rules exist for a reason; no competitor is above them.

All that said, for me it's Villeneuve junior - utterly charmless, graceless, lacking in charisma, and in my utterly personal and therefore subjective opinion, massive sense of entitlement.

[thiscocks]

FW18 said:

Villeneuve springs to mind in 1997 he wasn't really worthy of the title, as he was in a car that was twice the car the F310B and managed to take it down to the wire.

Renault chief Bernard Dudot said at the 97 German GP if Damon Hill was driving for Williams he would be leading the world championship, clearly displeased with both the efforts of JV and HHF.

Can understand if people dislike J Villneuve, but to call him an undeserving wc is plain wrong. Yes he was in the best car (although the Ferrari and McLarens wernt far off) but he drove some v good races and destroyed his highly rated German team mate.

Personaly don't understand why so many people seem to dislike him. He's an old school approach driver who says what he thinks and in most of his articles / comments he speaks a lot of sense. Always remember him slagging off Schumacher at Austria 02 for "not having the bks to stand on the top step himself". Respect.

[AreOut]

Frentzen highly rated? Oh please.

[thegreenhell]

AreOut said:

Frentzen highly rated? Oh please.

Before that season, yes he was. He was often considered to be better than Schumacher when they were teammates at Mercedes in sportscars. Those two seasons at Williams destroyed much of his reputation, which he only recovered partly with a couple of wins for Jordan later in his career.

[Eric Mc]

Mr_Thyroid said:

What you say only backs up my point.

"More dangerous" - more opportunities for injury, missed races and the wrong champion.

"Took part in as many races" - and yet only 6-or-so counted - ask any statistician if a sample size of 6 is adequate to judge anything.

Is a World Championship the only way to value a driver's ability? Back in those days it wasn't considered so important. In the modern age, due to the rise of TV, money and Bernie, Formula 1 has come to absolutely dominate motor sport. Before the 1980s it was just another series. At certain times it was by no means the most important. Winning Indianapolis or Le Mans was more prestigious than being World Champion.


Claiming that Jim Clark was an unworthy champion is pretty shocking to my eyes, particularly when you consider how other drivers rated him during his lifetime.

Maybe back then human values such as magnanimity and sportsmanship were just as important in judging a driver as much as how many points they put on the board.

Judging the qualities of a person based on points scored in a championship which was just looked on as one of many is pretty pathetic, in my opinion.

[Likes Fast Cars]

AreOut said:

Schermerhorn said:

For what it's worth, I don't think Schumacher did anything in Adelaide in 1994. In my opinion he tried to take the racing line back after colliding with the wall. Damon was unsighted and hit the side of him. You can't 'plan' something like that.

lol it was more than obvious

also he was banned for a reason and he and whole Benetton should be banned both in 1994 and 1995 with their electronic shenanigans

some evasions of rules happened before too but never on that level, Briatore and him started the era of distrust in F1

100%

[thiscocks]

thegreenhell said:

AreOut said:

Frentzen highly rated? Oh please.

Before that season, yes he was. He was often considered to be better than Schumacher when they were teammates at Mercedes in sportscars. Those two seasons at Williams destroyed much of his reputation, which he only recovered partly with a couple of wins for Jordan later in his career.

Yep, many at Williams expected him to win the title in 97.

[stephen300o]

"Out of his coma you say?... Resumes talking bks against Schumacher.."

[NewMetalSystem]

'Unworthy' is a difficult thing to define.

If it was 'Most worthy F1 Champion' then you can approach it in a number of ways.

• Objectively: Most world championships, thereby eliminating the possibility of fluke results;
• Objectively: Most wins in a season;
• Subjectively: Managed to win the World Championship without having the best car.

So if you flip those, the least worthy would be someone who only won the World Championship once, and only won one race in that season, so you're talking Hawthorne or Rosberg.

... Or someone who won the World Championship by virtue of having the best car. But as we can never really know how two cars stack up against each other it's pure speculation. Could be any of Williams champions in the 90s, any of Schumacher's, Ascari's or Vettel's.Maybe even Farina, Andretti, Hulme or Phil Hill.

[Agent Orange]

NewMetalSystem said:

So if you flip those, the least worthy would be someone who only won the World Championship once, and only won one race in that season, so you're talking Hawthorne or Rosberg.

Keke unworthy? Not sure I'd agree that but he certainly benefited from a large amount of luck.

When considering Keke you really should take into account that Rosberg was driving a car that was 3 years old and non-turbo'd. The Renaults, Brabhams and Ferraris were all turbo'd, either current or just a year old and had at apparently 100-150bhp in race trim advantage over the Williams Keke was driving.

But to counter that his team mate Reutemann was seemingly a far faster driver and had he not of retired very early in the season would've almost certainly finished ahead of Keke.

[thegreenhell]

There were also eleven different race winners in 1982, with no driver winning more than two races, so the fact that Keke only won one race isn't a reason for 'unworthiness' in that context.

On the other hand, the Ferrari challenge was neutralised by the separate accidents that killed Villenuve and then ended the career of Pironi. Indeed, Pironi was leading the championship at the time of his accident, and still finished second depite not starting the last five races.

[Mr_Thyroid]

Eric Mc said:

Is a World Championship the only way to value a driver's ability? Back in those days it wasn't considered so important. In the modern age, due to the rise of TV, money and Bernie, Formula 1 has come to absolutely dominate motor sport. Before the 1980s it was just another series. At certain times it was by no means the most important. Winning Indianapolis or Le Mans was more prestigious than being World Champion.


Claiming that Jim Clark was an unworthy champion is pretty shocking to my eyes, particularly when you consider how other drivers rated him during his lifetime.

Maybe back then human values such as magnanimity and sportsmanship were just as important in judging a driver as much as how many points they put on the board.

Judging the qualities of a person based on points scored in a championship which was just looked on as one of many is pretty pathetic, in my opinion.

I'm confused about whether you're now agreeing with my point or not. I was just making a frivolous statistical point about a World Championship based on so few events - I never mentioned any particular driver, certainly Jim Clark was not in my mind.