Do we REALLY need the championship?

[TimD]

This is going to sound like heresy, okay?

But LYM got me thinking about this when the subject of Jacques Villeneuve's championship came up.

It is alleged that Jacques got an easy ride from some of the other teams when he was in with a shout of his 1997 title. Whether or not this is the case is another matter, but I got to thinking about all of the races which have taken second place to someone's championship aspirations.

One of the things about Gilles Villeneuve is that everyone is agreed that he would probably have had a title if only he paced himself. But he was a 100% racer, and it was more important to him to be leading across the line at the end of every lap. With the result that mistakes got made, and mechanical components got stressed. He never won the championship, despite being a serious contender for five or six seasons.

The fateful 1982 season resulted in a championship win for Keke Rosberg. Now don't get me wrong - I'm more of a Rosberg fan than I am of any one of the current drivers, but I still have to ask the question. As Keke only won one race that year, and he was not often the pace of the field, just how representative is the '82 championship in the light of the competition he faced?

And then there are the statistical anomalies. Is it a good benchmark to use of driving talent when Nelson Piquet and Jack Brabham are three-time title holders, but Sir Stirling Moss, Clay Regazzoni, Pedro Rodriguez or Dan Gurney never scored a title?

And what about all of those wonderful other races, the Pau GP, the Race of Champions, the International Trophy, which all lost their support because they were "non-championship".

What do people think? Are there plus points to the championship system, or would it not be more fun to have each race as a stand-alone title?

[robert2000]

Originally posted by TimD
The fateful 1982 season resulted in a championship win for Keke Rosberg. Now don't get me wrong - I'm more of a Rosberg fan than I am of any one of the current drivers, but I still have to ask the question. As Keke only won one race that year, and he was not often the pace of the field, just how representative is the '82 championship in the light of the competition he faced?

I don't think it's representative at all. But I'm a John Watson fan, so the result was slightly OK.

I think had Tony Brise survived the Graham Hill plane crash then he would have won in 1980 and 1982. Wasn't it Brise that lapped Alan Jones in the same cars? There's no doubt about it that Brise had world championship potential.

The same goes for Tom Pryce, and it's a shame that he was another great talent lost to the sport.

[EERO]

Tim, its an interesting thought, but I have to say that in the end, its the ONLY measure we really have that isn't subjective. The sport is truely fickle-no one doubted Rindt's talents, but due to inferior drives, his first win proved elusive. Once he won at Wakins Glen in '69, the gates opened to the winner's circle until his tragic death less than a year later. Yet early in 1970, it looked as though Black Jack Brabham might win a fourth title!

I am curious about your choice of names of "Champions" with futile hopes. I was an enourmous Reggazoni fan as a kid and watched at Watkin's Glen as his title hopes in '74 faded in an indifferent drive. Yet had he won, he would join Keke as a "One Race Winner". I have heard Regga's talents maligned often-its refreshing to hear him mentioned in such august company. The same goes for Pedro Rodriguez, whose death in '71 cut short a career that seemed on the brink of its deserved success.

Surprisingly you omit Ronnie Peterson and Jacky Ickx, two drivers who in the right car, I am convinced would have won the title on a trot.

As much as I admire Damon Hill and believe that 1996 was the perfect congruence of talent, car and team, I suspect that History will not be kind to him. His father, despite two WDC's and those five wins at Monaco, has never been mentioned in the same breath as the "greats". Perhaps his comical personna and seemingly cavilier attitude belied his determined nature. But I believe he and his son were made of the same stuff.

Anyway, as I said, its an interesting thought and it points out how difficult it really is to judge the skills of any of these men. But I have to say that perhaps a driver can "luck" into the title once, but not three times and Piquet and Brabham won three times each.

[angst]

I think to most fans the championship, and statistics generally are pretty meaningless. Villeneuve, Regazzoni, Amon,Rodriguez, Depailler, Peterson, Ickx, Surer, Bellof, Alboreto, Tambay, Warwick, Larini, de Angelis are all drivers who have held my attention (some retrospectively, as I'm not old enough to have seen them in their heyday) and nobody will convince me that they were anything but highly talented racing drivers. The manner of their driving is far more important than their list of wins/championships. So, although there is a WDC we don't need one to revel in thew glory of our personal favourites (though it's nice when one wins it).

[Valve Bounce]

A championship is a competiton in which the winner scores the most points, or in Yachting the least points. What is the point in having a series without a championship? It is not always that the best competitor wins any championship - am I to tell everyone that I should have won a dinghy championship just because I lost the last race when my crew fell overboard and drag my boat onto the windward mark?
Be real - there were reasons why Stirling did not win - he chose to drive for Rob Walker instead of the factory team, he had bad luck in breakages, inferior engines and equipment, etc., etc., and yes!! In his day, he was the best, and has been recognised as so. But don't bad mouth the other competitors who won - they had better luck beter machinery, better reliability, or whatever, but they held together and won. Let's not demean their achievements by citing the excuses why other drivers should have won. I remembr a coach in VFL who, when it was suggested that his team was robbed, replied: " If we were good enough, we would have won". Being a champion means that you not only know how to win, but you must know how to lose.
In case you might not know, Stirling was my favourite, and always has been. I could not care less that he never won a championship - he was the best during his latter years in F1. But without the championship, what the hell is the interest?

[slicktoast]

. But don't bad mouth the other competitors who won - they had better luck beter machinery, better reliability, or whatever, but they held together and won. Let's not demean their achievements by citing the excuses why other drivers should have won. I remembr a coach in VFL who, when it was suggested that his team was robbed, replied: " If we were good enough, we would have won".
In your quote there are a lot of plural pronouns. And maybe that should be the point of the championship: the TEAM. Since there must be two car teams then maybe there should be the team, the constructor and the engine championships. Michael said they have the best machine, do you really think he would be WDC if he drove a Prost all season? Think of all the other team sports, they may be build around a certain player but he can't stand/win alone. It is a concerted TEAM effort and that's who deserves the title. Probably a true WDC would come from a very high level spec series.

[RussianFriend]

We need some criterias to judge who is the best, in other case it wound't been a sport.


Maybe current point system is not perfect. For example, racer could be scored for best lap, for his grid position, for his break-thought (e.g. from 18th place to 2nd), for overtaking. Maybe such system should take into account chassis-level (these are different points to win behind the Ferrari or behind the Minardi.

[Valve Bounce]

Well, I could say that without Brawn's Brains, TGf would not have won the WDC, but I won't. The driver's WDC is, somehow accepted by all the fans here that therre is significant team involvement. It has been mentioned all year that Ferrari had not won the WDC for 21 years. You guys are totally correct that if TGF had been in a Prost, he would not have won - he probably would not have scored a single point. I do recognise his talent after his superb drive at Suzuka. I use plurals simply because there were several years when Stirling "should have won, and didn't". However, I do like the present format of the WDC, and without that WDC, this forum would be a helluva lot quieter. Most of us are vry much interested in the WDC, and that is the point of the discussion, I suppose.