Is winning the most important thing

[bacon sandwich]

No winning is not the be all and end all. It's how you raced and conduct yourself - how many of the Classic GP moments are not about race wins ? and how much respect did DH gain after Adelaide for keeping his mouth shut - but in 20 years time - history is statistics - where winning is everything - the next generation will only know Schuey's World titles and who won what race - not the gentlemanly driving of Mr A or the teriffic pass of driver B on driver C.
Where's the "both" option ?

[krt917]

Originally posted by bacon sandwich
In 20 years time - history is statistics - where winning is everything - the next generation will only know Schuey's World titles and who won what race - not the gentlemanly driving of Mr A or the teriffic pass of driver B on driver C.

Only if they are ignorant and don't really care. I rather suspect that there will always be some people who will be interested enough to read (and watch, where possible!) about past races and championships. Unfortunately, for many people, you're probably right.

[garcon]

I'm not entirely sure I can believe what I'm reading.

We're talking about motorsport right? And, presumably F1 in particular?

Is winning the most important thing?

Erm. Yes. Simple. No qualifications, no ifs or buts. No question.

Just to be sure, I'll say it again:

YES!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, one qualification that's so obvious but I'll say it anyway - a win by cheating isn't a win. One could add if you get caught.

Can I respectfully suggest that if winning isn't the most important thing for you, perhaps motorsport ain't your thing? Or any other competitive pastime for that matter. Try flower arranging. Or maybe knitting.

[John Turner]

Garcon, on that basis, racing grids would be pretty small because if most 'would be' competitors took that approach they wouldn't bother to enter unless they knew that they could win. Since more than half of the grids in motor racing, whether at grass roots level or F1, know that they have little prospect of winning why would they, or do they enter? So we then have less racers 'enjoying' themselves and fewer enthusiasts like me to watch them.

In any event, whether a cheating driver gets caught or not is irrelevant. He, or she, will know that the 'win' was by unfair means, and what sort of person would be prepared to live with that knowledge in comfort? Not one worthy of our respect or consideration, I suggest.

[Liz]

John Turner, you are absolutely spot on. If today's Formula One was run only by drivers who knew they had any chance of winning on any particular day, there would be five cars starting the race and two at the end.

For a true sportsman, the competition is the name of the game -- doing the very best you can and always trying to do better than your personal best, with the firm belief that some day you will be able to win. Otherwise why not hire thugs to break the legs of your competitors or put horses' heads in their beds, or pay them big bribes to throw the race in your favour? Or have your contract written in such a way that you need not compete against someone you don't feel like racing against? If it's not whether you actually won -- but only whether the ignoranti perceive that you've won, then sabotaging your competition ought to be just as fair as the Schumacher Chop. And of course it is no such thing.

[Mark Webber]

winning is important but attitude is also importantI agree with R .

as a sub note I think winning WDC is more important than wining races . but that is another matter

[Valve Bounce]

I think that Jordan winning that race this year has breathed new life into the aspirations of the tailenders, although the thought of Minardi winning might be stretching the imagination a tad. However, there is always the hope that a Minardi driver would grace the podium one day, so there is still hope for them.

[krt917]

Originally posted by garcon
OK, one qualification that's so obvious but I'll say it anyway - a win by cheating isn't a win. One could add if you get caught.

Can I respectfully suggest that if winning isn't the most important thing for you, perhaps motorsport ain't your thing? Or any other competitive pastime for that matter. Try flower arranging. Or maybe knitting.

May I respectfully suggest that if you think winning is the most important thing to you then Motor Racing is too complicated for you and involves passions that you do not understand. Perhaps you should try something simple like flower arranging or something corrupt, like politics.

Might I also suggest that there have been some great champions - Fangio and Stewart come to mind - who have understood this and have won in a manner which has earned them even greater respect.

To win within the rules and certain principles is an achievement. To win by cheating is not and anyone who thinks so is a fundamentally flawed person or competitor.

Of course, there is a grey area inbetween when it comes to driving behaviour. Michael, for example, probably feels his moves are legitimate even though they clearly are not from the outside. That is why you have to have a decent governing body to police what is going on on the track as well as what the teams are doing.

[Liz]

Senna used to shrug off his occasionally blatantly unfair and unsportsmanlike behaviour by replying "But I am Senna!" IMO when you start reading your own PR and believing it, it's time to go home and write a book.

And believe it or not, there are people who remember when someone has cheated or otherwise fiddled the results -- a photographer who was at the USGP last year told me at Trois Rivieres that people he knows who were at that race will be watching very closely to see if TGF tries any tricks again. He said the booing carried all around the track. Those who were at the Grand Prix of Montreal last year will concur, I am sure, that people there expressed their opinion clearly and vocally during the drivers' parade.

[Valve Bounce]

The worst part is that if a person won a race or a championship by cheating, he himself will never forget.

[garcon]

The question was, is winning the most important thing. I really do believe it is. But the qualification I gave is absolutely vital - a win by cheating is not a win. Please ignore "if you get caught" - that was just me being facetious

So yes, winning IS the most important thing. However, as John Turner quite rightly said, if winning was the only thing then only those who thought they could would bother turning up. For the majority of those on the grid, their goal isn't necessarily to win the race, but maybe to get a podium, or a class win, or to beat their closest rivals. For them, achieving that goal is, in effect, a win. So maybe my answer was to a slightly different question - one that Liz raises: Is competing the most important thing? I cannot put it better than Liz did -

For a true sportsman, the competition is the name of the game -- doing the very best you can and always trying to do better than your personal best, with the firm belief that some day you will be able to win.

And in motorsport as much as any other competitive sport, there are codes beyond the written rules, those which define sportsmanship and gamesmanship. Even in today's high pressured, commercialised environment, I agree with krt917 in that a win with dignity by a true sportsman demands greater respect amongst fans.

But, as again pointed out by krt, there's a grey area. It's up to the governing body to set and enforce rules that define the boundaries and hopefully enhance the competition. Anyone who breaks those rules has clearly cheated and will (should) face the music. But, where possible, it's upto the competitor to interpret those rules, and if an advantage can be sought by legally taking that interpretation a little further than most, then the fiercest competitors will do so. The Schumacher chop is a fine example. It's a matter of opinion as to whether the chop is a fair and sporting move, but it's a simple matter of fact that currently it is legal. It's a point to take up with the FIA, not the driver - if the FIA banned it somehow, Schumacher would stop doing it. I do understand that many sports fans see this approach as devaluing Schumacher's achievements, but I don't necessarily agree. I would agree if I believed he consistently got away with outright cheating.

I am a great admirer of talent and style and dignity, but I'm also a true admirer of the grit, determination and unfading will to win that sets the greatest multiple champions apart.

[krt917]

We seem to be reaching some agreement, if not on every detail. Apologies if I took your previous post too seriously; I agree with most of the above, though I am one of those who would regard Michael even more highly if he didn't resort to some of the aforementioned tactics. I also believe, as stated in a previous post, that the FIA are the ones who should sort it out.

I would still vote no, not because I don't think winning is the aim of the game (of course it is), but becasue I think that there are important points to be made about HOW one wins, points which have been brought forward during the course of this thread.

[herowassenna]

In the final equation, the context of your victory is as important as the victory itself. Gilles Villeneuve shows that the context can even be _more_ important. One wonders how 5 WDCs, three won through sheer technological superiority, and one stolen through blatant cheating, will be remembered. [/B][/QUOTE] I've read all the views with interest and fundamentally agree with what everyone thinks.
Couple of things and these are IMO, since when has Benetton been taken to court and found guilty of cheating?
Is this the same reason that Ferrari and Schumi get branded cheats by Ron Dennis and them using Traction Control? Introduced in Spain 2001 with RD stating now the cheats will be outed because they will move backwards.........Ferrari began to dominate and Maclaren has been playing catchup ever since!!!

Excuse me, of the 5 championships which 3 were with superior cars?
1994, great car but the Williams with Senna would have caught them up.
1995, not a great car but brilliant driving and poor Williams performance....
2000, overall a better combination on car against Maclarens better peaky performance
2001, a car that was generally in the right ball park more often than the competition
2002...no argument, stunning package.

Senna displayed some of the most appalling manners on the race track but his death has allowed him to be revered.
Some of his performances will go down in legend if they're not already.
Schumi, yes ruthless and uncompromising but when he retires I'll remember Spa 1995, Spain 1996, Belgium 1997, Hungary 1998 and countless other races.

He has proved consistently since 1992 just how good he really is. He's won in every car he's driven in, whether merely good or with an advantage

[Damon]

Yes, but where is that career defining equivalent of Senna's Toleman drive at Monaco? Or Portugal 1985 in the Lotus. Yes Schu's performance at Spain '96 was good, but he was the only guy on the grid with a second car setup esspecially for the terrible conditions, whereas everyone else on that day was forced to take a compromised setup. His managers negotiation skills as much as his driving won Schu that race.

[Warwick]

I've changed it but a while ago my signature was the opening quote for this thread

"Its not whether you win or lose its how you play the game"

Thats is how I go racing,and anyone that I have met so far who thinks winning is everything has turned up to be a up themself ******.

If you do not race hard and fair and you cheat or deliberately take a competitor out to win it is not a victory.

[corkholio]

Originally posted by Damon
Yes, but where is that career defining equivalent of Senna's Toleman drive at Monaco? Or Portugal 1985 in the Lotus. Yes Schu's performance at Spain '96 was good, but he was the only guy on the grid with a second car setup esspecially for the terrible conditions, whereas everyone else on that day was forced to take a compromised setup. His managers negotiation skills as much as his driving won Schu that race.

Oh come on, you can make excuses better than that. There was a warm-up session the morning of that race that was wet as well, and in that practice most would have had the chance to set their car up for a wet race coming up, and in that session Damon Hill actually set a faster time, that was about only about 2 secs better than the fastest race lap, indicating the conditions weren't anywhere near a dry setup. If Schumacher had a superior setup for the race because of his manager , then why didn't he blow the rest of the field away during the warm up? Where was Damon during the race?

[racer69]

The aim of the game is to win races

[ASCII Man]

The aim of the game is to win.
Either a race win, title win, rival win, pole position, lap record, improved qualifying time, winning streak or whatever.

All those are wins and are the name of the game.

[krt917]

Originally posted by herowassenna
Excuse me, of the 5 championships which 3 were with superior cars?
1994, great car but the Williams with Senna would have caught them up.
1995, not a great car but brilliant driving and poor Williams performance....
2000, overall a better combination on car against Maclarens better peaky performance
2001, a car that was generally in the right ball park more often than the competition
2002...no argument, stunning package.

Senna displayed some of the most appalling manners on the race track but his death has allowed him to be revered.
Some of his performances will go down in legend if they're not already.
Schumi, yes ruthless and uncompromising but when he retires I'll remember Spa 1995, Spain 1996, Belgium 1997, Hungary 1998 and countless other races.

He has proved consistently since 1992 just how good he really is. He's won in every car he's driven in, whether merely good or with an advantage

Absolutely

And lets not forget that Michael is part of the reason why the Ferrari has become so strong. Senna used to chase the best drives (whihc is fair enough), but one of the things that I like about MS is that he chose to go to Ferrari when they weren't that strong. OK, they had the potential, but he took the challenge on and helped make it happen.

Originally posted by ®îjñtjûh
The aim of the game is to win.
Either a race win, title win, rival win, pole position, lap record, improved qualifying time, winning streak or whatever.

All those are wins and are the name of the game.

Yes, but don't forget the qualifications about HOW you win. The way drivers conduct themselves on the track is important too, which is why I always have some reservations about Senna and Schumacher (despite my above point!)

[Liz]

It's up to the governing body to set and enforce rules that define the boundaries and hopefully enhance the competition. Anyone who breaks those rules has clearly cheated and will (should) face the music. But, where possible, it's upto the competitor to interpret those rules, and if an advantage can be sought by legally taking that interpretation a little further than most, then the fiercest competitors will do so.

So essentially you believe that anything you can get away with is okay; it's not up to you to police yourself, it's up to others to force you into line ... It doesn't make me wonder then why so many business people are being hauled off to jail, if that is the kind of morality people think should rule the world. Where's the difference between Senna ramming his teammate off the track in order (he thought) to win the championship, and Enron cheating its employees in order to enrich the "winners" at the top of the pile?

Esentially I do think some of us believe that the real definition of winning is "winning with honour" -- and I am disturbed that no one has commented that a win in which you actually kill your competitor is going too far. Apparently as long as you can get away with it it/not get caught, to some people that's just as good as if you won honorably. How far would you go, personally? Would you kill your teammate? Would you sabotage his car? Would you lock him in the trailer? Would you bribe his crew? Or is just leaning on the team to sabotage his contract good enough?

Why doesn't morality have anything to do with this picture?

[Red Baron]

I voted YES. I don't wanna see 'Mr Consistent' win the WDC, I wanna see the guy with the most wins under his belt win it......even if it does turn out to be JPM - Bah Humbug

[goforit500]

YES - WINNING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING BUT....

I am in the fortunate position of having won some races and the most satisfying by far are the ones when I have had a massive scrap to win with another driver that I fully respect and trust. The opportunity for a subtle punt is always there as is the opportunity for blatant cheating.

The individual ultimately has to be able to live with what they have or haven't done. If MS can sleep OK and what he has done is within his moral envelope, then fine.

Personally, I would rather come a clean second than cheat to win - No honour, No point.

[John Turner]

Originally posted by Damon
Yes, but where is that career defining equivalent of Senna's Toleman drive at Monaco?

Only career defining if you overlook Bellof's drive, I suggest!

[krt917]

Originally posted by Liz
Esentially I do think some of us believe that the real definition of winning is "winning with honour" -- and I am disturbed that no one has commented that a win in which you actually kill your competitor is going too far. Apparently as long as you can get away with it it/not get caught, to some people that's just as good as if you won honorably. How far would you go, personally? Would you kill your teammate? Would you sabotage his car? Would you lock him in the trailer? Would you bribe his crew? Or is just leaning on the team to sabotage his contract good enough?

Why doesn't morality have anything to do with this picture?

Great points, as usual Liz

Originally posted by Red Baron
I voted YES. I don't wanna see 'Mr Consistent' win the WDC, I wanna see the guy with the most wins under his belt win it......even if it does turn out to be JPM - Bah Humbug

I agree, but I think that this thread is about how you win and whether or not it is OK to do ANYTHING to win, which to me it isn't, so I voted no. The debate about wins Vs consistancy is happening on another thread concerning this seasons points system. I would be happy to see you there as we will be on the same side in that particular debate!!

[herowassenna]

Can someone tell me when Schumi has actually cheated a win. I'm not talking about his stupid move on Hill or Villeneuve at the last races but when has he cheated in a Grand Prix?
I'm completely fed up with the same boring consistent garbage.

I get more pleasure from a hard thought win over a easy stroll to victory no matter what the race but I still want to win.

So the guy's the only one out there who's willing to push everything to the limits, if the rules say 1 move that's what he does.....
Villeneuve constantly complains about his driving ethics but I remember Suzuka 1997 where JV had been disqualified after his 3rd yellow flag transgression of the season. Under appeal he tried to ruin MS's race by slowing the pace, Irvine swept by and threw the Williams gameplan out the window
What angered me more than this was when Schumi was coming down the pit straight at 190 mph and Villeneuve after a pitstop swept completely across the track to prevent him passing..........double standards again?

Win at all costs? Let's not forget these are modern day gladiators in a sport where death and injury ( whilst thankfully extremely rare ) are part of the equation.
2000 years ago it would have been to the death, and whilst nowadays that is unacceptable the mindset and genetics of these guys is identical.

"when i see an accident, i put my foot down hard because everyone else is lifting" JP Sarti I believe.....