A World Champ ALWAYS rates over a non World Champ - Discuss

[fazzaz]

John,

My reference to Ken Purdy was triggered by Deeks' comment in post #23 concerning the Moss legend.

In addition to being Moss' biographer, Purdy wrote a number of articles on Moss, notably in "Playboy" magazine, and perhaps in "True" and other magazines as well. I think his collective writings helped build the Moss legend in a number of areas, particularly outside the cockpit. Purdy clearly admired Moss, and I think the image of Moss as the lone talented knight, driving nothing but British cars and upholding the Union Jack against the rest of the world, was a recurring theme of Purdy's writing. I think that certainly in the United States some of the Moss legend has come from Purdy's writing.

This is meant in no way to take away from Moss' ability or accomplishments, but as Deeks noted, Moss certainly was adroit in using the press. I think Purdy is an illustration of this.

Fazzaz

[John Turner]

O.K, Fazzaz, I understand. To me, he is a legend purely on what he achieved on track and I don't really think that record needs embellishing!

[deeks6]

Lads, let me again comliment you on the strength and quality of your arguments...and let me again remind you of the topic...

Nobody yet has given a clean reason why the WDC's should NOT be given precedence with any LOGICAL reason...

Jeeze, I LOVED watching GV, RP etc racing as hard as they could...I reckon Stefan Bellof was as good (fast) a driver as you could ever see (recall Porsche 956 at Sandown in the 80's) but would he have had the temperament to win a WDC? Doubt it...

I'm jealous that another poster saw Ascari live...I reckon he should rate a lot higher than "popular" history suggests.

John, if I had my "subjective" choice, the only men on your right that I would rate with the men on your left would be Moss and Gurney (for obvious reasons, their overall racing record) so that adds weight to my original argument.

Where do you draw the line? You have not stated this as yet.

Best regards

[ASCII Man]

.

[BootsOntheSide]

Let me put it this way. Are the 27 drivers who won the world championship all great drivers? Yes. But are they better than the 27 drivers who've won the most races? Or the 27 drivers with the biggest win percentage? And if so, why? Being in the right place at the right time is a big element of winning a title, as is having a team-mate who isn't competitive enough to either beat you or take points off you and allow someone else to steal in.

[strider]

e.g. 1992...

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by deeks6

Lads, let me again comliment you on the strength and quality of your arguments...and let me again remind you of the topic...

Nobody yet has given a clean reason why the WDC's should NOT be given precedence with any LOGICAL reason...

Jeeze, I LOVED watching GV, RP etc racing as hard as they could...I reckon Stefan Bellof was as good (fast) a driver as you could ever see (recall Porsche 956 at Sandown in the 80's) but would he have had the temperament to win a WDC? Doubt it...

I'm jealous that another poster saw Ascari live...I reckon he should rate a lot higher than "popular" history suggests.

John, if I had my "subjective" choice, the only men on your right that I would rate with the men on your left would be Moss and Gurney (for obvious reasons, their overall racing record) so that adds weight to my original argument.

Where do you draw the line? You have not stated this as yet.

Best regards

Deeks, I've never said that the WDC should not be a factor, simply not the sole factor. Why? - because it is simply the result of a points calculation - it is a statistic that ignores all other qualities and isn't able to identify star drives, for example. I haven't drawn a line because I don't where to draw it and I suspect that applies to many of us. It simply isn't a black and white situation as Boots has just pointed out. That's what makes it so interesting.

Agree about Stefan Bellof. He was too fast for his own good; very sadly, it killed him.

I'd love to know what ASCII Man was going to post wouldn't you? Hope it wasn't going to be too rude

[runshaw]

Im just going to add a simple comment, a World Champion doesn't AlWAYS rate over a non World Champ, but does most of the time. Its quite difficult to say because some dirvers are never in the right place at the right time. It is something that will never be truly answered, because it is almost impossible to know if some non world champs were as good if not better than world champs.

[ensign14]

OK, on that basis Ferdinando Minoia (European Champion 1932) rates above Tazio Nuvolari and Achille Varzi on the basis they were never Champions.

And Thomas Bscher ranks above Bob Wollek.

At times like this I wish Eddie Irvine had won the '99 title.

[John Turner]

Erm .... Ensign, is that in response to runshaw's posting or to the thread in general? Are you missing the point? I'm only asking because, bearing in mind all the previous posting on this thread which is F1 specific, I'm not sure where you are coming from here.

If Eddie Irvine had won the 1999 WDC, I could probably have increased my right hand side list, I guess!

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Erm .... Ensign, is that in response to runshaw's posting or to the thread in general?

Thread title. Which does not specifically limit it to World Champs. As far as basic premises go, it is one of the more fatuous, which has generally come across.

[John Turner]

It mentions the term 'World Champ' twice and this is an F1 thread and has many articulate contributions. Thanks for yours!

[ensign14]

Sorry - meant it did not limit it to Formula 1. Cheated a bit with "European" but given that Europe = the world at the time (on the basis that racing around the world in that era was just as parochial) I thought I'd have a plump.

To take it outside motor sport, Andy North won a mighty 3 titles in his golfing career. But 2 of them were at the US Open. Does that make him better than, say, Montgomerie, Olazabal, Woosnam and many others that won one or fewer?

[Jordi]

I had this for years as my signature. I think it fits very well with this topic... Jim Clark said that "the championship has a certain amount of luck attached to it. It is not really conclusive proof of anything."

Taking that view, I don't think it should be set in stone that World Champions are automatically better than drivers who were never able to win a title, for many reasons, such as luck, cars availables, coincidence in time with other great drivers, etc.

And using another famous quote, on the specific case of Gilles Villeneuve, what made him was his passion... "...if I had taken the Bosch Kurve more slowly I would not have gone off the circuit. But if I had gone slowly I would not have been a Formula One driver. I would not have been Gilles Villeneuve (Austria 1981)

It's true that perhaps drivers like Prost won more than other drivers, but it's equally true that drivers like Gilles probably won more fans for himself and for F1 by the way he drove, not by how many races he was able to lead from start to finish.

Humanity has an element of romanticism and you can't take that away. Luckily, the world is not just about statistics. Triggering feelings inside the fans like making impossible passes, or driving the wheels off the cars are what make people follow F1, and that's probably as important as a world title.

[arthurive]

Originally Posted by deeks6

Since when was a Mercedes a British car?????

Of course......
But, after that, Moss abjectly refused to drive for Ferrari, despite the fact
that Enzo was openly desirous of Moss joining the Scuderia.
Moss, DID (after Mercedes) drive exclusively British (except 1956) by choice.
He (or at least his supporters) always claimed it was due to British pride.

I have my own controversial opinion about Moss, which is bound to ranke some. I think that Moss was uneasy about driving for the best team.
He had the best car in 1955 and failed to win the title (OK, Fangio and all)
After that, Moss steared clear of Ferrari, and then primarily drove privately
enetered outfits rather than the for the factory teams. My question:
Was Moss afraid to drive for the "best" for fear that he'd be expected to
win? He seemed to relish his role as "undisputed #1" (after JMF's retirement)
but had to play 2nd fiddle to Hawthorn, Brabham and Phil Hill.
Was he insecure?

[ensign14]

He had the best car in 1958. After that he drove for Rob Walker because he enjoyed it. He could have gone to Lotus and nearly got killed (which of course is what happened even in a privately prepared car), or he could have gone to Cooper where Brabham had the engineering sway, or he could have gone to BRM whose best year came after his crash (Moss in a BRM in 1964 would have been a fearsome prospect).

Given the fact that he was winning in a private Lotus before the works got a sniff I do not see how he was in any way insecure and incapable of dominating in a works car. But sometimes you drive for enjoyment; Moss has said that having lost the title in '58 he was not bothered about it.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by ensign14

Sorry - meant it did not limit it to Formula 1. Cheated a bit with "European" but given that Europe = the world at the time (on the basis that racing around the world in that era was just as parochial) I thought I'd have a plump.

To take it outside motor sport, Andy North won a mighty 3 titles in his golfing career. But 2 of them were at the US Open. Does that make him better than, say, Montgomerie, Olazabal, Woosnam and many others that won one or fewer?

OK, I now understand where you are coming from - I think we actually agree as you will see from my posts.

Originally Posted by arthurive

Was Moss afraid to drive for the "best" for fear that he'd be expected to win? He seemed to relish his role as "undisputed #1" (after JMF's retirement) but had to play 2nd fiddle to Hawthorn, Brabham and Phil Hill. Was he insecure?

Interesting point and question but I think it most unlikely. For example in 1958, the Vanwall, which I have already suggested was a harder car to drive to its full potential than the Ferrari, was nevertheless, as fast if not faster, than the Ferrari at most circuits, since it did have drivers (Moss, Brooks, Lewis Evans) capable of extracting that performance. It won 6 Gps that year against Ferraris 2, so this does not stack up. Moss and Brooks took 3 wins apiece in the Vanwall (ie each winning 3 x that of Hawthorn) and Moss was the undiputed team leader despite the presence of Brooks, another driver, who, in my book, was better than some of WDCs.

After 1955, I don't think Moss played second string to anyone, and indeed after Fangio's retirement until his accident in 1962, he was the undisputed No1 regardless of the outcome of successive World Driver championships. You could actually turn your comment on its head. I think it more likely that Moss, himself, expected to win too easily in the best car, and preferred to relish the challenge of winning in an inferior car. As Ensign has stated, after Moss failed to win the WDC in 1958, with 4 wins against Hawthorn's 1 win, his interest in securing the WDC became a secondary consideration to the sheer enjoyment of a racing challenge.

Originally Posted by jordi

Taking that view, I don't think it should be set in stone that World Champions are automatically better than drivers who were never able to win a title, for many reasons, such as luck, cars availables, coincidence in time with other great drivers, etc.

Humanity has an element of romanticism and you can't take that away. Luckily, the world is not just about statistics. Triggering feelings inside the fans like making impossible passes, or driving the wheels off the cars are what make people follow F1, and that's probably as important as a world title.

Very well put Jordi. There are intangibles in all this that make it difficult (for me, anyway!) to draw (as deeks wants me to) a line which allows us to create a set of criteria that makes one driver better than another, that works in every case. Its never as simple as that.

[deeks6]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Very well put Jordi. There are intangibles in all this that make it difficult (for me, anyway!) to draw (as deeks wants me to) a line which allows us to create a set of criteria that makes one driver better than another, that works in every case. Its never as simple as that.

Uh uh, John, you ain't gettin away with that one ... my line is that a WDC RATES higher than a non-WDC simply because they won one (or more) and they are so hard to win. You can have a criteria for wins, qualifying, unluckiest or whatever you want and put your man (or men) at the top of that tree. But the WDC separates THE men from the rest.

Nobody yet has given a more apt description of "better" and the argument is STILL resorting back to people's subjective opinions (better/worse car, unlucky, etc etc).

Let me try to explain that one last (and different) way - I'm not suggesting at all that (for e.g) Jacques Villeneuve had a "better" racing career overall than (for e.g) Stirling Moss. What I am saying is that (for at least one year), he achieved more than Moss ever did. That's a fact, cold and hard. He won a WDC, Moss did not. The pinnacle of motor sport is a WDC and Moss did'nt get there. Therefore, I have to rate him higher. Moss (and Gurney) may be the best driver never to win a WDC and that's where his place in history resides for mine.

And all GV's, Ronnie's, Bellof's, Beltoise's, Rodgriguez's, Alesi's, Bergers, Amon's, Ickx's and all the other blokes that we loved (and loved to watch) can fall in behind that somewhere. And I reckon all those guys would agree with me, too. The romantics tend to severely underrate "survivors" like Phil Hill, Emmo, AJ, Mario, Scheckter, Damon Hill, JV and even (amazingly) Alain Prost. Take a look at their overall racing records - they stack up pretty well.

[Jordi]

Originally Posted by deeks6

Uh uh, John, you ain't gettin away with that one ... my line is that a WDC RATES higher than a non-WDC simply because they won one (or more) and they are so hard to win. You can have a criteria for wins, qualifying, unluckiest or whatever you want and put your man (or men) at the top of that tree. But the WDC separates THE men from the rest.

Nobody yet has given a more apt description of "better" and the argument is STILL resorting back to people's subjective opinions (better/worse car, unlucky, etc etc).

If people resort back to their subjective opinions it's because people are not robots... Of course it's a fact that if Schumacher won 7 and Alesi 0, Schumacher has more titles. But precisely because we are humans with feelings, we don't go by just by statistics. Emotions play a part as well and people will always remember Gilles more than Jacques, simply because Jacques has a much more calculated driving style than his father.

It all comes down to what's the question:

a) Are we asking if people consider some non-WDC drivers to be better than WDC drivers?

b) Or are we asking if WDC drivers have achieved more than non WDC drivers?

In a), there's not a definite answer, it is subject to everyone's perception of the facts available, such as cars, rivals, luck, DNFs, etc.

In case b), yes, a WDC driver has achieved more than one that hasn't won a WDC, in F1 at least. But that's a statistic.

I think the intent of the question went more with a) than with b).

[Kicking-back]

Back in Stirlings day he drove in so many different types of races each year, being World Champion was not the be-all and end-all it is today.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by deeks6

Uh uh, John, you ain't gettin away with that one ...

.... the WDC separates THE men from the rest.

Oh, yes I am, ...... and ...... Oh no it doesn't!

[BootsOntheSide]

If you compare the careers of Moss and Phil Hill, Moss has a better record in every other statistic you can name, except world championships, and they weren't the biggest deal at that time. I still think a list of the 28 drivers with the most wins would give you a better impression of overall ability and consistancy.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by deeks6

Let me try to explain that one last (and different) way - I'm not suggesting at all that (for e.g) Jacques Villeneuve had a "better" racing career overall than (for e.g) Stirling Moss. What I am saying is that (for at least one year), he achieved more than Moss ever did. That's a fact, cold and hard. He won a WDC, Moss did not. The pinnacle of motor sport is a WDC and Moss did'nt get there. Therefore, I have to rate him higher. Moss (and Gurney) may be the best driver never to win a WDC and that's where his place in history resides for mine.

Yes, on your basis of rating, you would rate Jacques, higher, although, in this particular example, they are several generations apart. I've tried to restrict myself (without too much success, I agree!) to comparing contemporaries. In my view, subjective though it maybe, Jacques doesn't even get close to Moss, who, in any event finished in the top 3 of the WDC, 7 years running. What jordi, I, and others are saying is that achievement is not the sole criterion for deciding that one driver is better than another. Mind you, I could argue that if I were to inclide Moss sports car achievements, at a time when this form of motor racing virtually had equal status to F1, his 'achievements' would make many of those of the WDCs pale by comparison. I think, as you said very early, that we would have to agree to disagree!! I just wish you wouldn't restrict yourself to such a rigid basis on which to assess these drivers.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by Jordi

a) Are we asking if people consider some non-WDC drivers to be better than WDC drivers?

b) Or are we asking if WDC drivers have achieved more than non WDC drivers?

In a), there's not a definite answer, it is subject to everyone's perception of the facts available, such as cars, rivals, luck, DNFs, etc.

In case b), yes, a WDC driver has achieved more than one that hasn't won a WDC, in F1 at least. But that's a statistic.

I think the intent of the question went more with a) than with b).

Yes, Jordi, the intent was more towards a), and well put

[Oaksnaf]

Well on that note. You would have to say Stirling Moss was a better driver than Hawthorn, however for multiple reasons was unable to achieve the World Champion status by statistics, but he was a World Champion personality and morality wise. But hey nice guys dont always finish first.

There are tons of drivers who showed potential and the *could have* *would have* are always aplenty. But there is a reason behind everything.