Unworthy champions (except Raikkonen)
Discussion
Are the F1 champions of late worthy of being called champions?
Had a discussion with a workmate earlier, and with Alonso going back to Renault on the condition that HK is not his team mate, we got thinking, with the exception of of Kimi, the recent drivers championships have had pretty much exclusive backing of their team to become wold campions. Before anyone dives down my throat, I know there have been some good battles with drivers from other teams, but intrateam battles seem to be shy'd away from, this is why i am asking in this post.
There was Schumacher, who, though never confirmed except from the team mate, had contracts written in which the team mate HAD to defer to him, and would let him past to gain maximum points, both Irvine and Barrichello claimed this, Massa did help MS too although never said anything about this being in the contract.
Then there is Alonso, his 2 campionships were pretty much unchallenged from within, although Fisichella is a good driver, he never really gave FA anything to worry about. Last season FA moaned and whinged that he was not given No 1 status and even stated in live interviews that he wasn't expecting equal treatment when he came to the team (we all know as spectators this is McLarens policy, why wasnt he aware) and that he needed no 1 status to win the championship. Looking at the statistics, if Lewis had deffered to FA then FA would have won the chapionship, but reverse the situation, and the same could be said of Lewis. Now he has signed back with renault, and the reports in the press claim he insited the Heikki was dropped as he was too quick and FA saw him as a threat, hardly fair for Heikki really.
As i said in the title, except KR, due to Ferrari giving both him and massa equal chance to race for the title untill Massa dropped so far behind so as to be mathematically impossible to take the title, then and only then did he help KR. Will KR still be like this IF/when FA moves there in 2009, assuming KR stays there.
So my question after this long winded post is, does a drivers championship mean the same when they have the assistance of their team mate for the full season instead of a team mate who is given an equal chance to take the title himself?
Had a discussion with a workmate earlier, and with Alonso going back to Renault on the condition that HK is not his team mate, we got thinking, with the exception of of Kimi, the recent drivers championships have had pretty much exclusive backing of their team to become wold campions. Before anyone dives down my throat, I know there have been some good battles with drivers from other teams, but intrateam battles seem to be shy'd away from, this is why i am asking in this post.
There was Schumacher, who, though never confirmed except from the team mate, had contracts written in which the team mate HAD to defer to him, and would let him past to gain maximum points, both Irvine and Barrichello claimed this, Massa did help MS too although never said anything about this being in the contract.
Then there is Alonso, his 2 campionships were pretty much unchallenged from within, although Fisichella is a good driver, he never really gave FA anything to worry about. Last season FA moaned and whinged that he was not given No 1 status and even stated in live interviews that he wasn't expecting equal treatment when he came to the team (we all know as spectators this is McLarens policy, why wasnt he aware) and that he needed no 1 status to win the championship. Looking at the statistics, if Lewis had deffered to FA then FA would have won the chapionship, but reverse the situation, and the same could be said of Lewis. Now he has signed back with renault, and the reports in the press claim he insited the Heikki was dropped as he was too quick and FA saw him as a threat, hardly fair for Heikki really.
As i said in the title, except KR, due to Ferrari giving both him and massa equal chance to race for the title untill Massa dropped so far behind so as to be mathematically impossible to take the title, then and only then did he help KR. Will KR still be like this IF/when FA moves there in 2009, assuming KR stays there.
So my question after this long winded post is, does a drivers championship mean the same when they have the assistance of their team mate for the full season instead of a team mate who is given an equal chance to take the title himself?
IMO yes it does.
That said I would rate a WDC which has had to really be worked for as more rewarding than a walk in the park.
MS 2002 would be less of an achievement than NM in 1992 imo. Both were the best drivers in their team, both had the best kit under them but only one required their team mate to help, rather than race, them.
This being the case I am recicent to say that Fangio 'won' five WDC's (IMO he Won 4 and was gifted 1 by Collins). Funny old World isn't it With history repeating itself.
That said I would rate a WDC which has had to really be worked for as more rewarding than a walk in the park.
MS 2002 would be less of an achievement than NM in 1992 imo. Both were the best drivers in their team, both had the best kit under them but only one required their team mate to help, rather than race, them.
This being the case I am recicent to say that Fangio 'won' five WDC's (IMO he Won 4 and was gifted 1 by Collins). Funny old World isn't it With history repeating itself.
kevin ritson said:
On the other hand, is Raikkonen's championship worthy given the destabilising factor that was Spygate?
As someone who likes what he sees with Hamilton and suports Maclaren (until Williams gets into a winning position again 
) i would say Kimi deserved this years title. I really wanted LH to win it but he didn't and KR is a very worthy champion. At the very least i would say he deserved this years crown to make up for all the other years he should have won it (ala M. Mansell...)megy said:
So my question after this long winded post is, does a drivers championship mean the same when they have the assistance of their team mate for the full season instead of a team mate who is given an equal chance to take the title himself?
Yes, I think it does. It's important for there to be a high level of competition but I don't think it matters whether that competition comes from a driver's team mate or exclusively from opposition teams' drivers.Edited by SamHH on Wednesday 12th December 12:52
rude-boy said:
This being the case I am recicent to say that Fangio 'won' five WDC's (IMO he Won 4 and was gifted 1 by Collins). Funny old World isn't it With history repeating itself.
I don't think Collins was contractually obliged to hand his car over to Fangio, I think he did it because he thought it was the right thing to do. Good point tho'MrKipling43 said:
Schumacher's 1994 title
Interesting point. We all know the German cad took out Our Damon at the final race. And if it was in today's championship he'd probably have been penalised and Our Damon would have been WDC.
However, had it not been for him (Schumacher) and them (Benetton) being disqualified and/or banned for a number of races that year then Schumacher would have totally walked it.
Now, the bans and disqualifications are arguably justified but if we're looking at deserving champions, Schumacher was the best driver that year and did serve his time for the 'cheating' therefore to say he was undeserving is subjective.
If the roles were reversed and Our Damon had took him out at the final race would we have said that Our Damon didn't deserve it? I think not.
Christ, I'm defending the German
Muzzer said:
MrKipling43 said:
Schumacher's 1994 title
Interesting point. We all know the German cad took out Our Damon at the final race. And if it was in today's championship he'd probably have been penalised and Our Damon would have been WDC.
However, had it not been for him (Schumacher) and them (Benetton) being disqualified and/or banned for a number of races that year then Schumacher would have totally walked it.
Now, the bans and disqualifications are arguably justified but if we're looking at deserving champions, Schumacher was the best driver that year and did serve his time for the 'cheating' therefore to say he was undeserving is subjective.
If the roles were reversed and Our Damon had took him out at the final race would we have said that Our Damon didn't deserve it? I think not.
Christ, I'm defending the German
SamHH said:
trickywoo said:
In the shoemaker years Bennetton also ran illegal traction control.
This is often stated as fact, yet other than people claiming to have heard traction-control like noises, I've never seen any supporting evidence.Also, Flav admitted that the car did have TC, but that it was only used in testing. That, I believe, is why people talk about hearing TC noises during races.
Muzzer - interesting points, and I guess it ultimately all comes back to the question 'what should a champion be willing to do to win?'
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff