If Bernie had got his precious "Medals" scoring system...

[Flat12-Aircool]

Then at this rate if Button keeps winning, the season would be as good as over by Hungary.

TV audiences would halve for the last part of the season, and nobody would be bothered about the fancy new Abu Dhabi circuit.

[Super Hans]

What sort of Grand Prix enthusiast would stop watching just because the title had been decided early?

[HughGJohnson]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

What sort of Grand Prix enthusiast would stop watching just because the title had been decided early?

Most of the viewers aren't enthusiasts, though. The medal system would have cost FOM big time. Strange that a man so concerned with the bottom line would propose an idea that could cost the whole sport untold millions.

A closer championship fight will not only attract the casual fan, but create new ethusiasts. Plus it's just more fun to watch.

[Marbot]

Let's not forget that the WDC could be wrapped up well before the final race even under the current system!

[Flat12-Aircool]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Let's not forget that the WDC could be wrapped up well before the final race even under the current system!

That is true, but it would come a few races later than under the Medals system. At least with the points system the leader is still obliged to continue pushing until it's mathematically impossible to be caught.

With the medals system if Button did keep winning until Hungary, then theoretically he could just put his feet up for the rest of the season and let a Brawn test driver take over. Not that he would do that of course, but it illustrates that under the Points system DNF's hurt you more than with Medals.

[Al Weyman]

Watching the race yesterday and seeing cars dicing for pointless 13th and 14th places got me thinking, why not have points for all finishers, that way it would mean those lower order dices would be worth the risks and add to the spectacle.

[neiltb]

I agree al, points available to all but you only score if running at the end. Could be a problem of banged up cars heading out to do the last lap and getting in the way, maybe dock 1 point for every lap behind to a minimum of 0 points.

[HughGJohnson]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

Watching the race yesterday and seeing cars dicing for pointless 13th and 14th places got me thinking, why not have points for all finishers, that way it would mean those lower order dices would be worth the risks and add to the spectacle.

Those fights might be pointless, in the literal sense. However, they do mean something. They're used as tie-breakers for the championships and they decide how big a piece of the FOM revenue pie the team gets. More importantly I like the fact that you actually have to earn points in F1 and that it isn't easy. Unlike nascar, where they give away hundreds of points to multi-lapped and wrecked cars.

[ensign14]

Any scoring system that means someone who wins more than half the races is not champion is asinine. The one who has beaten everyone in the field in the majority of races could be beaten by someone who has third placed their way. Odious.

[Al Weyman]

It was only a passing thought and better than medals, looking at that race was pretty odious or at least what I see of it as I afraid to say I fell asleep watching it what a total bore, when are they going to drop that silly round off the calendar, lovely setting yes but as a race circuit no way and he wants to drop Silverstone, thats asinine!

[JimW]

Now there must be someone on here who is able to keep a running score comparison of points versus medals? It might be more interesting than the Monaco race anyway.

Jim

[Flat12-Aircool]

Originally Posted by ensign14

Any scoring system that means someone who wins more than half the races is not champion is asinine. The one who has beaten everyone in the field in the majority of races could be beaten by someone who has third placed their way. Odious.

To be beaten by somebody who has 3rd placed all the way through is hardly ever going to happen.

But why should somebody who won say 6 races have a divine right to be World Champion over somebody who won 5 races? If the guy who won 6 proceeds to prang his car several times and gets more DNF's then that's his own fault.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

To be beaten by somebody who has 3rd placed all the way through is hardly ever going to happen.

it would be a very rare occurrence to be sure.

But why should somebody who won say 6 races have a divine right to be World Champion over somebody who won 5 races? If the guy who won 6 proceeds to prang his car several times and gets more DNF's then that's his own fault.

at the same time thought, after winning 5 out of 6 his lead hardly reflects his dominance so far. he doesn't need to several DNF's, 2 would probably be enough to erase his lead.
after the season he has had so far to be only 16 points clear of RB is a bit of a joke imo. but maybe thats more of a problem with the points system.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

But why should somebody who won say 6 races have a divine right to be World Champion over somebody who won 5 races? If the guy who won 6 proceeds to prang his car several times and gets more DNF's then that's his own fault.

Because 6 is bigger than 5.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

Watching the race yesterday and seeing cars dicing for pointless 13th and 14th places got me thinking, why not have points for all finishers, that way it would mean those lower order dices would be worth the risks and add to the spectacle.

Don't most club race series do exactly that? Certainly yacht racing you get points for each position (3/4 pt for first, 2 for second 3 for third etc etc). Lowest score for the series wins (usually with a discard). The 3/4 gives a slight bias towards getting a first, so 1st + 3rd is better than two seconds.

[Flat12-Aircool]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Because 6 is bigger than 5.

Congratulations for one of the most feeble reasons ever.

[HughGJohnson]

Originally Posted by ensign14

Any scoring system that means someone who wins more than half the races is not champion is asinine. The one who has beaten everyone in the field in the majority of races could be beaten by someone who has third placed their way. Odious.

Winning more than half of the races should give you more than a leg up, to be sure, but it shouldn't give you the championship. Driver A could win 9 races, qualify in the back and crash out of 8 other races and beat Driver B with 8 wins and 9 seconds. If the field was very even someone could win the championship with only two or three race wins even if he drives like Piquet (Jr.) in every other race.

I'd be in favor of increasing the gap in points between first and second. They could just go back to the old system. The only reason they changed it was to keep Schumacher from running away with it.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by HughGJohnson

Winning more than half of the races should give you more than a leg up, to be sure, but it shouldn't give you the championship. Driver A could win 9 races, qualify in the back and crash out of 8 other races and beat Driver B with 8 wins and 9 seconds.

Quite right too, the name of the game is winning. If we look at a wikipedia page of Wimbledon winners, it does not mention that John Newcombe came second four times, yet does mention Richard Krajicek who only reached one final. Krajicek is more successful at Wimbledon than Newcombe because he beat everyone there more times.

[HughGJohnson]

Originally Posted by ensign14

Quite right too, the name of the game is winning. If we look at a wikipedia page of Wimbledon winners, it does not mention that John Newcombe came second four times, yet does mention Richard Krajicek who only reached one final. Krajicek is more successful at Wimbledon than Newcombe because he beat everyone there more times.

Apples and oranges.

That Newcombe guy must have won more matches coming in second, but as you say it's winning (the championship) that counts. I care less about who won more matches than I care about tennis at all. Races wins are just that, race wins. That's victory for a day. The championship is about sustained success over a whole season. That's victory for a year.

[climb]

the problem is, medals don't belong in motorsport

[ensign14]

Neither do championships. Who is the golf world champion for example? It's just a marketing tool grafted on to reduce the importance of the races themselves.

[dsg]

Originally Posted by ensign14

Quite right too, the name of the game is winning. If we look at a wikipedia page of Wimbledon winners, it does not mention that John Newcombe came second four times, yet does mention Richard Krajicek who only reached one final. Krajicek is more successful at Wimbledon than Newcombe because he beat everyone there more times.

John Newcombe won Wimbledon in 1967, 70 & 71.

Bad example but I get your point.

[ensign14]

I was mixing him up with Ken Rosewall. D'oh!

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by climb

the problem is, medals don't belong in motorsport

Then don't have medals. Just have a countback. It's the system that matters, not the prize.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by ensign14

Neither do championships. Who is the golf world champion for example? It's just a marketing tool grafted on to reduce the importance of the races themselves.

Which is why each Grand Prix is now seen as merely a means to an end rather than an end in itself.