If Vettel Wins Again, What Do We Think?

[HandyNZL 1]

So if Vettel manages a threepeat (there you go Eric, I Americanized it for you (twice actually, because I put a "z" in "Americanised)), what do we think of him?

Not only will he be the first driver since Schumacher to make it to three championships, thus eclipsing Alonso to the "magic mark", he will join other three time (or more) champions such as:

Juan Manual Fangio 51, 54, 55, 56, 57

Jack Brabham 59,60,66

Jackie Stewart 69,71,73

Niki Lauda 75,77,84

Nelson Piquet 81,83,87

Alain Prost 85,86,93

Aryton Senna 88,90,91

Michael Schumacher 94,95,00,01,02,03,04

Will he be a good champion? A great? A legend? Lucky he was in the right car at the right time?

[Massa 0]

Was there a single good/great/legendary champion in the "era in which we can try to make comparisons to today" that wasn't also lucky to be in the right car at the right time?

Everyone who wins a championship is getting credit for being the face of the achievements of many. Which doesn't mean they don't deserve credit for getting in these cars because that still takes courage, and doing what they are supposed to do with them. But that's as far as I take my conclusions. I have no way to tell myself any comparison is fair, and no way to put anything in historical context. All you can say is that he beat everyone he's had to race against just like everyone else did. It's a nice accomplishment...

...but one I really, really, REALLY hope I don't have to witness.

[freaky2 1]

Well, even if we say it's sometimes (many) boring you can't say he lucked into 2 or 3 championships. Of course his car is good, but he wouldn't have gotten the opportunity to drive it if he hadn't proven that he is also good.

I think that to be a legend is easier once your time has passed, when numbers start to be more tangible than memories of what this guy did or didn´t do. I doubt that we will consider him a legend while he drives, not because it's impossible but because we have this "but he has a great car" idea stuck in our brains. And then there's also the fact that he doesn't really carry that legend image on him (see the English anthem thing XD).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if he gets a third championship this year he will at most rise to the status of a "great" and even that might cost him a little. Times change, and standards too! But definitely "lucked into three championships in a row" is out of the question

[JHS18 0]

Any driver is always going to have fans and detractors.

If he crashes lots he's either the next Ayrton Senna/Gilles Villeneuve or a sh*t driver.

If he wins lot he's either the best driver ever ever ever or a lucky son of a bitch with the best car.

Always the case.

Whatever - you have to have some degree of talent to win three titles, particularly three in a row.

But I think it is hard to judge how it measures up against other greats - it always is when you try and compare one driver from one era to another driver from a different era.

[Caesar 0]

to be great you have to have at least one year pause between titles and win titles in different cars

[HandyNZL 1]

Was there a single good/great/legendary champion in the "era in which we can try to make comparisons to today" that wasn't also lucky to be in the right car at the right time?

Everyone who wins a championship is getting credit for being the face of the achievements of many. Which doesn't mean they don't deserve credit for getting in these cars because that still takes courage, and doing what they are supposed to do with them. But that's as far as I take my conclusions. I have no way to tell myself any comparison is fair, and no way to put anything in historical context. All you can say is that he beat everyone he's had to race against just like everyone else did. It's a nice accomplishment...

...but one I really, really, REALLY hope I don't have to witness.

My intent was not to compare driver era's. My intent was purely about the number of championships in their career. Each person that has won multiple times, apart maybe from Lauda as he had a bit of a substantial break between his championships, won there championships against the same set of drivers, and thus proved to be "the best/greatest/legend of their time".

[HandyNZL 1]

Well, even if we say it's sometimes (many) boring you can't say he lucked into 2 or 3 championships. Of course his car is good, but he wouldn't have gotten the opportunity to drive it if he hadn't proven that he is also good.

I think that to be a legend is easier once your time has passed, when numbers start to be more tangible than memories of what this guy did or didn´t do. I doubt that we will consider him a legend while he drives, not because it's impossible but because we have this "but he has a great car" idea stuck in our brains. And then there's also the fact that he doesn't really carry that legend image on him (see the English anthem thing XD).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if he gets a third championship this year he will at most rise to the status of a "great" and even that might cost him a little. Times change, and standards too! But definitely "lucked into three championships in a row" is out of the question

So one championship is say 50% luck, 50% talent, and thus a person is termed simply a "championship winner/driver"? Two championships is evidence of true driving talent, and therefore we term them "really good / best on the grid", and three or more championships removes all elements of doubt, and so we term them "greats"....accordingly then only Fangio and Schumacher can be called "legends" as they have won more than three championships, in different cars and teams to boot.

And if that is how we define terms, can Schumacher be considered a legend whilst he is still on the grid?

[HandyNZL 1]

Any driver is always going to have fans and detractors.

If he crashes lots he's either the next Ayrton Senna/Gilles Villeneuve or a sh*t driver.

If he wins lot he's either the best driver ever ever ever or a lucky son of a bitch with the best car.

Always the case.

Whatever - you have to have some degree of talent to win three titles, particularly three in a row.

But I think it is hard to judge how it measures up against other greats - it always is when you try and compare one driver from one era to another driver from a different era.

As replied to with Eric's post, I don't think we need to try to compare era's to determine who is great or not. What is the point anyway? Some championships from different eras were easier to win than others for whatever reason. However, to win a championship, first you had to beat your peers....which is more where this comparison should be drawn....to do that three times must be a good thing, yes? If not, great? So I think we should only look at it that way, essentially the ten years or so the driver was active, and how he fared against everyone else in that time.

Regards your "crashes lots" analogy, then perhaps we need to pull Mike's thoughts on this in from the other thread he and I were debating about "talent". The thing with crashing a lot is that, you either do it all the time, and when you're not doing it, you're slow, or you do it now and again, usually whilst attempting a pass or pushing it, and when you're not wrecking your race by becoming acquainted with the armco, you're either winning it, getting on the podium, or driving your nuts off at or near the front. It all requires context. Senna and Villeneuve were considered great/good drivers because even though they crashed now and again, they were doing whilst pushing to win, or they weren't doing it at all (crashing), and they were outclassing the majority of the field.

About being lucky, well yes, there is that, but per my reply to the Freakster, luck can really only come into the first championship in enough degree to cause some doubt as to a drivers standing. So does that make Button's championship more luck than talent? Afterall, the Brawn car was so ahead of the rest for the first half of the season, Button was then "lucky" to hold on for the championship win by the end of the season.

[HandyNZL 1]

to be great you have to have at least one year pause between titles and win titles in different cars

I agree that championships in different cars / different teams removes some of the doubt over best car/right time thing, but, has the driver not just lucked into being in the right car at the right time again, but just so happens to be at another team? Or is this good career management, by either the driver himself, or the drivers management team....

A one year gap might indicate that the competition at the time between cars / teams was closer or more competitive than at other periods. And in some instances, the gap may have represented contractual obligations of a driver that stopped them moving to a team on the up when they wanted to so as to do two-in-a-row.

[AleHop 0]

If Alonso manages a threepeat...

[HandyNZL 1]

If Alonso manages a threepeat...

A point I was going to bring up, considering both drivers are sitting on two championships. And then if BOTH Alonso and Vettel win three times, which is the better "great"...is one more legend than the other?

Or could we simply say that whilst their careers crossed paths, Vettel won three times and Alonso only once, and thus Vettel is the legend "of this era"

And, just to nit pick, Alonso can not manage a threepeat at this time, as threepeat, as defined by American sports, is three times in a row...not three times. So if he was to threepeat, his third-peat would be his fifth title...and wouldn't you just love that

[Caesar 0]

I agree that championships in different cars / different teams removes some of the doubt over best car/right time thing, but, has the driver not just lucked into being in the right car at the right time again, but just so happens to be at another team? Or is this good career management, by either the driver himself, or the drivers management team....

A one year gap might indicate that the competition at the time between cars / teams was closer or more competitive than at other periods. And in some instances, the gap may have represented contractual obligations of a driver that stopped them moving to a team on the up when they wanted to so as to do two-in-a-row.

it isn't easy to decide who is great. there is pure statistic of results, which will be remembered and it is proof that some drivers were very good( because average driver can't win WDC), and there are many other factors that make driver great. how he manages bad car, bad girlfriend, his ugly nose , mental pressure, wrong tyres, team decisions, good competition, good teammates,bad weather conditions.....at least i have to see all of these things to make my decision. it is easier to watch F1 in present time and say driver X is great, but so are drivers Y and Z although they haven't won WDC yet.i don't know how many great drivers were in F1 history that were racing with fangio, clark, lauda... i would have to watch all those races , but for most of the people that follow F1 from time to time results have big impact because it is easier to make decision that way.vettel may win 3 or even 4 titles (and become one of the greatest F1 drivers), but it is hard for me to consider him greater than alonso, hamilton or kimi.

[Massa 0]

My intent was not to compare driver era's. My intent was purely about the number of championships in their career. Each person that has won multiple times, apart maybe from Lauda as he had a bit of a substantial break between his championships, won there championships against the same set of drivers, and thus proved to be "the best/greatest/legend of their time".

Then yes, Sebastian Vettel will be the greatest driver of 2010-2012 if he is to win.

[Rainmaster 7]

It seems to me that "greatness" as a concept is hazily defined; it means different things to different people. Many would say Gilles was a great driver yet he never won the title. So it really depends on how you are defining it. If we are talking about greatness in terms of how good a driver is (rather than say, how good they were to watch) then you'd have to accept that any driver who won three titles was exceptionally good. But being exceptionally good is not something unique in Formula One, in any given season you could say there were 2, 3, 4 or more exceptionally good drivers. For example, Alonso, Hamilton and Vettel could all be called exceptionally good drivers (and so too perhaps could Kimi, Button, a fit Kubica etc). Furthermore, if you have the car advantage, which is almost always a fact of life for whoever wins the title, does it mean just because you extracted that advantage that you are better than the others? No, that is circular logic. Was Vettel the best driver in 2010? Of course not, he made many mistakes and stronger drivers than Webber would have beaten him, I think. Was he the best in 2011? There's an argument he was, or at least, he was right up there with Alonso, Button and whoever else you care to mention.

What does it all mean? Well, Vettel's races and two titles so far have shown him developing very strongly as a driver, and it has to be said he is now in the category between the less impressive WDC's and the legends category, perhaps closer to the legends, though. What I would say about him so far are 3 very important things for a champion: the ability to learn quickly; the ability to deliver consistently; great preparation and focus for his racing.

But do I consider him a "legend" yet, in terms of talent, in the vein of Fangio, Clark or Senna? Absolutely not, I don't think he has shown that level yet, and there is no shame in that (or maybe he just hasn't really had the chance, it's more difficult to judge when someone has the best car). What I would say without doubt, even if I'm not convinced he has that sublime talent of the very best, is he has the approach of a champion, and must be one of the wisest racers for his age that F1 has seen. He is good enough already to "deserve" winning three titles. So is Alonso, who for me has an ounce more talent and similar levels of focus and preparation (application). Hamilton may have the talent to deserve three titles too, but can get nowhere until he fixes his application.

[Caesar 0]

button, vettel,alonso, kimi, hamilton - if they sign right contract they can win 3 titles in a row . mika hakkinen almost did it 1998,1999,2000.

[HandyNZL 1]

Then yes, Sebastian Vettel will be the greatest driver of 2010-2012 if he is to win.

You sarcastic cheeky yankee....his career isn't just 2010, 11, and 12, is it...

[Massa 0]

I think Vettel will be remembered well for being so young when he won and so dominant.

I think Vettel will be remembered negatively for not doing that in a "traditional" team. People never like people who can do the same things they did in a way they didn't do it.

There's also a tendency to underrate present drivers and overrate past drivers, as you are all aware. We're scared to say Vettel's among the other guys because Vettel still races so he can't really be that good and those guys don't race anymore so they must be really wonderful. But every day is someone's glory day so there will be a time when we're afraid to compare someone to Vettel...

...but then again, the more guys that win 3 WDCs, the less special that accomplishment becomes...so maybe those other guys on the list aren't that great if some kid can do it...

[freaky2 1]

So one championship is say 50% luck, 50% talent, and thus a person is termed simply a "championship winner/driver"? Two championships is evidence of true driving talent, and therefore we term them "really good / best on the grid", and three or more championships removes all elements of doubt, and so we term them "greats"....accordingly then only Fangio and Schumacher can be called "legends" as they have won more than three championships, in different cars and teams to boot.

And if that is how we define terms, can Schumacher be considered a legend whilst he is still on the grid?

Now, Craig, I really love numbers and logic that can be followed through every circumstance, but the way you just stated it there doesn't work and wasn't what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say was more in line with Eric's comments, namely, that I can't judge very well right now because of my subjective feelings and impressions of Vettel (and for other people this impressions will be different from mine so they will have a different consideration of his status in F1 right now). And apart from my naive subjectivity, there is also the fact that I have never seen any of those legends in the list (bar Schumi and I only remember the "boring" years) so I can't say exactly what made them be considered legends, obviously there are some (legends) who never won three titles and I couldn't even name them without looking at Wikipedia first to ascertain I wasn't forgetting someone.

And another question, how do you name your best on the grid driver? Do we use a poll? Is it Kubica when he rises to a podium his car didn't deserve, or is it Alonso who drove two brilliant championships and many more race wins, or is it Kimi because I like him and believe in his potential to do incredible things with team Poochie, or is it Vettel because he won the last two championships? Everyone has a different view and I could consider Vettel a fast-learning kid (actualy George´s appraisal is in line with mine, as always, but he writes much more better ) and Button a legend... in the end nothing is clear.

Are legends and greats a consensus thing? Is it because they utterly amazed everyone when they drove and no one has a doubt remaining? Many people have this issue, or that other issue with Vettel. Far from unanimous. Do I explain myself a tiny bit better than yesterday night? Anyway, what I said about Vettel becoming an "almost great" was definitely only my opinion and as you have just read it doesn't carry a lot of weight

[dribbler 6]

Vettel has had a great car for the last two seasons and probably will have for this one too, yes. But then so has Mark Webber and he has won....now let's see.....oh, that's right, nothing.

So Vettel is good, I think it fair to say.

How good? Who knows. Pointless trying to measure or determine.

I might be getting old, or ther might be something in what I'm about to say; I don't feel like I'm witnessing history unfold in front of me n the way I did when Michael was dominating.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

It seems to me that "greatness" as a concept is hazily defined; it means different things to different people. Many would say Gilles was a great driver yet he never won the title. So it really depends on how you are defining it. If we are talking about greatness in terms of how good a driver is (rather than say, how good they were to watch) then you'd have to accept that any driver who won three titles was exceptionally good. But being exceptionally good is not something unique in Formula One, in any given season you could say there were 2, 3, 4 or more exceptionally good drivers. For example, Alonso, Hamilton and Vettel could all be called exceptionally good drivers (and so too perhaps could Kimi, Button, a fit Kubica etc). Furthermore, if you have the car advantage, which is almost always a fact of life for whoever wins the title, does it mean just because you extracted that advantage that you are better than the others? No, that is circular logic. Was Vettel the best driver in 2010? Of course not, he made many mistakes and stronger drivers than Webber would have beaten him, I think. Was he the best in 2011? There's an argument he was, or at least, he was right up there with Alonso, Button and whoever else you care to mention.

What does it all mean? Well, Vettel's races and two titles so far have shown him developing very strongly as a driver, and it has to be said he is now in the category between the less impressive WDC's and the legends category, perhaps closer to the legends, though. What I would say about him so far are 3 very important things for a champion: the ability to learn quickly; the ability to deliver consistently; great preparation and focus for his racing.

But do I consider him a "legend" yet, in terms of talent, in the vein of Fangio, Clark or Senna? Absolutely not, I don't think he has shown that level yet, and there is no shame in that (or maybe he just hasn't really had the chance, it's more difficult to judge when someone has the best car). What I would say without doubt, even if I'm not convinced he has that sublime talent of the very best, is he has the approach of a champion, and must be one of the wisest racers for his age that F1 has seen. He is good enough already to "deserve" winning three titles. So is Alonso, who for me has an ounce more talent and similar levels of focus and preparation (application). Hamilton may have the talent to deserve three titles too, but can get nowhere until he fixes his application.

lovely stuff!

[AleHop 0]

A point I was going to bring up, considering both drivers are sitting on two championships. And then if BOTH Alonso and Vettel win three times, which is the better "great"...is one more legend than the other?

Your question is something I can't answer. It all depends on your perception. Why is Senna so highly considered with "only" 3 championship belts? Prost-Senna battles, maybe? Donington 93, Monaco, Toleman, Lotus, etc. Then he died and everybody realised they would have to use a VHS to watch him driving again.

Let's say RB8/Vettel are as dominant as last year, right or wrong the title would have a different meaning if he has to fight against Ferrari and McLaren. If Mercedes and Lotus are in the fight too it would be even better.

He's a good driver no doubt, how good? Better than... We don't know. He's better than Webber, that we know.

[dribbler 6]

lovely stuff!

Whenever I get a 'Brad lovely stuff' it always reminds me of getting a gold star in my text books at school.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Whenever I get a 'Brad lovely stuff' it always reminds me of getting a gold star in my text books at school.

I can't recall how it started, i think it just seemed intuitive when I started posting here at TF1....

[Massa 0]

I think I personally underrate all the best guys. The best guys don't excite me. They're the ones who can win pole, flawlessly execute a race, and pick up the win. Those guys are damn good. But they bore me. So I don't care about them. Drivers as drivers (and you all know I look beyond driving) excite me when they're throwing their cars around and making overtakes they have no business making and occasionally bending some bits on their car and still driving off like nothing happened and winning from deeper in the field. Alonso's opening lap at Hungary, Massa's drive at Silverstone from the tail-end of the field, Kobayashi at Brazil in his debut...stuff like that stands out to me. Of course Alonso's a very good driver, Kobayashi may become one, Massa got lucky. But the point is I'm more inclined to overrate a Juan Pablo Montoya who makes me say "holy **** there's just no way" than a guy like Vettel who I should be saying "holy **** there's just no way he's winning these races and these poles" but instead say "yeah whatever that's nice."

So whether or not he's a great or a legend or whatever, the drivers I remember for their driving are the ones that excited me. Vettel hasn't, because he's good enough to put himself on pole so he doesn't have to drive on the ragged edge from the back of the grid (at least in the little I've seen of both of his championship years). I might remember Vettel's accomplishments if he adds to them, but I won't remember his driving. That's no discredit to him as a driver.

[AleHop 0]

I think I personally underrate all the best guys. The best guys don't excite me. They're the ones who can win pole, flawlessly execute a race, and pick up the win. Those guys are damn good. But they bore me. So I don't care about them. Drivers as drivers (and you all know I look beyond driving) excite me when they're throwing their cars around and making overtakes they have no business making and occasionally bending some bits on their car and still driving off like nothing happened and winning from deeper in the field. Alonso's opening lap at Hungary, Massa's drive at Silverstone from the tail-end of the field, Kobayashi at Brazil in his debut...stuff like that stands out to me. Of course Alonso's a very good driver, Kobayashi may become one, Massa got lucky. But the point is I'm more inclined to overrate a Juan Pablo Montoya who makes me say "holy **** there's just no way" than a guy like Vettel who I should be saying "holy **** there's just no way he's winning these races and these poles" but instead say "yeah whatever that's nice."

So whether or not he's a great or a legend or whatever, the drivers I remember for their driving are the ones that excited me. Vettel hasn't, because he's good enough to put himself on pole so he doesn't have to drive on the ragged edge from the back of the grid (at least in the little I've seen of both of his championship years). I might remember Vettel's accomplishments if he adds to them, but I won't remember his driving. That's no discredit to him as a driver.

I agree more or less but normaly the guys at the front catch 80% of my attention during the race unless Alonso is somewhere else.