A Champion's Worth

[Autumnpuma 0]

I am not sure how you can arrive at that percentage...?

I obviously pulled it out of my a##, but the fact remains a driver's input in relation to the rest of the factors contributing to success in racing is at its lowest level in F1 history.

--please refrain from pulling 90% of something out of your arse (especially if it's made-up percentages). It sounds mighty painful. As to the rest, that is opinion, not fact.

You only need the most reliable and a quickish car to win. You do not need the best car. Many of MS's wins were from superior strategy, not superior car (though at time he did indeed have both)

Without a top notch car, strategy will win you zip. Last year Renault had the best car. It wasn't the fastest, but it was the best. My money is on a good driver in the best car beating the best driver in good car. i.e.

Two cars on the track. A Renault and a BMW. Put JV in the Renault and Alonso in the BMW. Who's gonna win????

You would lose your money if you bet as you just said. As to your comparison, I said a 'quickish' car (and you also said a 'top' car), not a dog-in-development (as the BMW is right now). Try that comparison with a Renault and a Ferrari. Or a Renault and a McLaren. Even a Renault and a Honda might work.

Certainly Imola last year proved what a driver can do with an inferior car...

Mixed with a whole pile of retirements

I was referring to Alonso holding off MS and his superior Ferrari. That was all driver skill. Re-read my statement with that in mind and you'll get somewhere edifying.

Verstappen and Frentzen were in the best cars at one time, but no championships for them.

Neither one I remember as been actually considered Good. Frentzen career is easily forgetable

Verstappen was rated highly at first, as I recall, until he was blown completely away by MS. Frentzen was supposed to be the next 'big' thing when he was at Williams. Patrick Head was even pushing with all his might to get Frentzen ahead of JV. This failed because JV was just too good. Jos and HH were both 'good' drivers at the time they had thier shot in a championship-calibre car.

Instead of continuing on with this, fun though it is, lets re-set back to the point:

Of the three WDC on the current grid, Only Mikey has proved, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he is worthy of at least one championship. This is because we've seen him pull off additional championships after his first. He has proven the first wasn't a fluke or a trick or just his fast car. The same cannot be said, objectively, of Alonso and Jacques. I rate both drivers highly and personally believe what they've done in their first championship-winning year makes them worthy, but my belief, strong though it is, cannot convince everybody.

As jemstride has said, he didn't give Alonso credit for really winning the WDC on his own merits as a driver, but on his (jem's) estimation of the Renault's superiority. It's only now, in Alonso's title-defending year, that jem claims Alonso is a worthy champion. Those voices that still doubt Alonso's worthiness will only be silenced by another championship against a strong Ferrari and resurgent MS.

So, too, Jacques. Only a return to winning form will silence the critics on his racecraft. Only another championship will silence the nay-sayers that claim '97 was due to his car.

Then again, knowing human nature, perhaps not even these proofs will be enough..

[Autumnpuma 0]

Mike, I agree with your first sentence. And your last sentence. I'm very dubious about what's in between, even though I can see your logic.

Very wise, Russ. Those two sentences you agree with are fact. The rest is complete opinion. A wise man is always dubious of opinion...

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Of the three WDC on the current grid, Only Mikey has proved, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he is worthy of at least one championship. This is because we've seen him pull off additional championships after his first. He has proven the first wasn't a fluke or a trick or just his fast car. The same cannot be said, objectively, of Alonso and Jacques. I rate both drivers highly and personally believe what they've done in their first championship-winning year makes them worthy, but my belief, strong though it is, cannot convince everybody.

As jemstride has said, he didn't give Alonso credit for really winning the WDC on his own merits as a driver, but on his (jem's) estimation of the Renault's superiority. It's only now, in Alonso's title-defending year, that jem claims Alonso is a worthy champion. Those voices that still doubt Alonso's worthiness will only be silenced by another championship against a strong Ferrari and resurgent MS.

So, too, Jacques. Only a return to winning form will silence the critics on his racecraft. Only another championship will silence the nay-sayers that claim '97 was due to his car.

Then again, knowing human nature, perhaps not even these proofs will be enough..

I liked Alonso b4 2005 i'll admit, now i have my reservations, what i did'nt like was how he won the championship on the back of HOW he did it. This year he's got a superior package, he can lead from the front, does it suddenly make him more credible Jem. Only credit i'll give Alonso is that he's got a cool head and does'nt make alot of mistakes. But alot of these current drivers ARE like that. It's plainsail EASY for him at the moment. The car suits his driving style, the engine don't break down, his car is the best with electronical starts, and he's got the RESOURCES to match MS at his own game. note, RESOURCES......Who develops his strategy, clearly Symonds has a big hand in it.

Quote YHR "90% of a world championship drive is the car. You need the best car and team to win. FA had that last year, MS had it for all the Ferrari titles and JV had it with Williams. I think like Frank Williams. Build the best car, put a good driver in it and you will win a Championship. "

Yes, but JV from the start knew more about developing his own car and setup with how easy Alonso has it at the moment... Did JV take years to develop a winning car with his team? He won his championship in his second year, after pushing Hill in his first year of F1! Even if he had the best car in 1997, surely his championship is an amazing achievement!

JV much more credible than Alonso in my books!

[Jem of the Shire 0]

As to the rest of your statement, that was not thought out very well. Senna did not always have the best car. He always had a top car, but not always the best. Fangio's always had very fast teammates, unless you consider Sterling Moss slow? Mansell I can't produce a sufficient argument against so I'll concede that to you. Going one further, MS didn't always have the 'best' car and yet he won championships.

What you were saying about JV can be said about any champion.

By the way who do you think has lucked into their first title?

[monza gorilla 1]

Keke Rosberg?

[Jem of the Shire 0]

It's only now, in Alonso's title-defending year, that jem claims Alonso is a worthy champion. Those voices that still doubt Alonso's worthiness will only be silenced by another championship against a strong Ferrari and resurgent MS.

Its got nothing to do with the fact that its his title-winning year - its because this year he's actually beating his opponents rather than inheriting points

sorry I meant title DEFENCE year

[BradSpeedMan 6]

...its because this year he's actually beating his opponents rather than inheriting points

why is it painful for you to seeing him win though, you always hope he does'nt win. If you think of Alonso as one of the best top 2, it should'nt be a problem...

[Jem of the Shire 0]

why is it painful for you to seeing him win though, you always hope he does'nt win. If you think of Alonso as one of the best top 2, it should'nt be a problem...

I dont really know why I hate seeing him win - probably because I think Schumacher is more deserving as he is the best in the world. Also don't like Alonso's character/how he comes across

p.s. I think Alonso is at best top 3. Just my opinion though

[BradSpeedMan 6]

I dont really know why I hate seeing him win - probably because I think Schumacher is more deserving as he is the best in the world. Also don't like Alonso's character/how he comes across

p.s. I think Alonso is at best top 3. Just my opinion though

yes,

It's Michael, then Kimi,............. then Alonso,......as luck would have it, Alonso got there first, but i know we'll see Kimi as champ soon

[Jem of the Shire 0]

yes,

It's Michael, then Kimi,............. then Alonso,......as luck would have it, Alonso got there first, but i know we'll see Kimi as champ soon

should've been 2005 really but i'm over that now! I'm sure his time will come, wouldnt be surprised if its 2007, with alonso in a slow mclaren and kimi in a dominant ferrari

[tvbf1 0]

I'm just wondering about this credibility of a WDC. A lot of people including me think that Alonso's win last year was mostly due to luck. But if he wins it this year then it will quite a lot of us up. However there are still some that will say he wins because Renault gaved him a good car.

So what do you guys think about this. A WDC can only prove himself as a true WDC if he wins it multiple times with different machines. For instance like MS. He's won it in both the Benetton and Ferrari.

Alonso is going to McLaren next year and JV is at BMW, so if they win next year or next, next year, then there's no doubt that they are WDC material.

What do you guys think?

[Autumnpuma 0]

I'm just wondering about this credibility of a WDC. A lot of people including me think that Alonso's win last year was mostly due to luck. But if he wins it this year then it will quite a lot of us up. However there are still some that will say he wins because Renault gaved him a good car.

So what do you guys think about this. A WDC can only prove himself as a true WDC if he wins it multiple times with different machines. For instance like MS. He's won it in both the Benetton and Ferrari.

Alonso is going to McLaren next year and JV is at BMW, so if they win next year or next, next year, then there's no doubt that they are WDC material.

What do you guys think?

Interesting twist.

What you were saying about JV can be said about any champion.

By the way who do you think has lucked into their first title?

Personally, I give due respect to all WDC winners. All have overcome obstacles and had the fortitude to pull off a championship. This thread was meant to argue from the popular point-of-view that some champions are not deserving their first and that only winning a second will quiet the detractors.

It certainly is showing where people stand on this, isn't it?

[YHR 0]

Interesting twist.

Personally, I give due respect to all WDC winners. All have overcome obstacles and had the fortitude to pull off a championship. This thread was meant to argue from the popular point-of-view that some champions are not deserving their first and that only winning a second will quiet the detractors.

It certainly is showing where people stand on this, isn't it?

I agree 100% with this statement.

100%(OOwW that hurt) of the guys who have won the WDC are very good drivers, who deserved to win. Whether they were best or not is open up to opiniated debate. Lets face you could argue that some of the years that MS won the title in the dominant Ferrari were a cake walk for him. The Ferrari was so good even RB won races. Those years of Ferrari dominance proved the car was the best but did little to indciate the ability of MS. I would suggest any of the top 10 drivers in that Ferrari would have done well.

Alonso winning last year in a car that was not the fastest proves more to me then MS winning in the totally dominant Ferrari for all those years.

I am more impressed with JVs Record against his team mate then his actual WDC title. The fact that as a Rookie he could come in and beat the seasoned DH is more impressive then the WDC a year later.

[tvbf1 0]

WDC Credibility is kind of hard to justify. For example currently we have 3 WDC on the grid. A lot of people including me believed that Alosno victory last year is due to Luck and a good car. If he wins again this year then it'll quiet up a lot of people. However there are some that will still think that he wins because Renault gave him a good car.

So what do you guys think about this then? For WDC to truely prove that he's a true champion he must win multiple WDC in different machine as meaning different teams. For instance MS as he won it in the Benetton and Ferrari's.

Since Alonso is heading to the McLaren next year and JV at BMW, if they are to win it next or so sometime in the future then they're true WDC material. No questions asked. If not then maybe it's just their luck or it the team and car that made them better then who they really are.

What do you guys think?

WDC Credibility is kind of hard to justify. For example currently we have 3 WDC on the grid. A lot of people including me believed that Alosno victory last year is due to Luck and a good car. If he wins again this year then it'll quiet up a lot of people. However there are some that will still think that he wins because Renault gave him a good car.

So what do you guys think about this then? For WDC to truely prove that he's a true champion he must win multiple WDC in different machine as meaning different teams. For instance MS as he won it in the Benetton and Ferrari's.

Since Alonso is heading to the McLaren next year and JV at BMW, if they are to win it next or so sometime in the future then they're true WDC material. No questions asked. If not then maybe it's just their luck or it the team and car that made them better then who they really are.

What do you guys think?

I'm so sorry, the first time I post this. I didn't see it so I post it again. Just ignore this one. Sorry.

But I'm really interested in hearing what you guys have to think about what I said.

[Jem of the Shire 0]

I am more impressed with JVs Record against his team mate then his actual WDC title. The fact that as a Rookie he could come in and beat the seasoned DH is more impressive then the WDC a year later.

JV beat Damon Hill? Maybe once or twice in a straight fight, but not over the season. Hill messed up a few of his starts, and had some retirements, Hill was easily the more deserving winner in the end. But it was very impressive that he did manage to put up a fight for the title in his rookie year

[YHR 0]

JV beat Damon Hill? Maybe once or twice in a straight fight, but not over the season. Hill messed up a few of his starts, and had some retirements, Hill was easily the more deserving winner in the end. But it was very impressive that he did manage to put up a fight for the title in his rookie year

Yes that is what I meant. I think JV had 3 victories against Hill in his rookie year, and challenged Damon throughout the year.

Hill deserved to be the WDC, just as JV did the year after. I remember the F1 journalists claiming the HHF would beat JV. I was very satisfied how JV totally dominated HHF on his way to claiming the WDC.

[Jem of the Shire 0]

Yes that is what I meant. I think JV had 3 victories against Hill in his rookie year, and challenged Damon throughout the year.

Hill deserved to be the WDC, just as JV did the year after. I remember the F1 journalists claiming the HHF would beat JV. I was very satisfied how JV totally dominated HHF on his way to claiming the WDC.

Yes HHF was a mystery in 97 - he had shown such promise at sauber. And strangely he turned back into a brilliant driver as soon as he left williams!

[Autumnpuma 0]

Yes HHF was a mystery in 97 - he had shown such promise at sauber. And strangely he turned back into a brilliant driver as soon as he left williams!

Heinz listened too closely to Patrick Head on car set-up. Had he copied what JV was doing, Heinz's season might have been better. Also, the Williams team 'atmosphere' was too much for Heinz. A strong driver, but with thin-skin.

[cavallino 2]

HHF had a phenomenal year in 99, he deserved better, definitely better than Irvine if not Mika, who got it right at the end, whil Irvine got it so so wrong.

[c21 0]

Heinz listened too closely to Patrick Head on car set-up. Had he copied what JV was doing, Heinz's season might have been better. Also, the Williams team 'atmosphere' was too much for Heinz. A strong driver, but with thin-skin.

Compare that with 1999, not the best car, but Harry Heinz still had a shot at the wdc with three races to go in the Jordan!

[YHR 0]

Yes HHF was a mystery in 97 - he had shown such promise at sauber. And strangely he turned back into a brilliant driver as soon as he left williams!

That mystery being JV. He was that good and that strong. 2nd year and he was already telling Head, ummm, I don't think so!!!!(With respect to set ups)

[Autumnpuma 0]

That mystery being JV. He was that good and that strong. 2nd year and he was already telling Head, ummm, I don't think so!!!!(With respect to set ups)

Almost accurate. Head would tell JV what bits to use and what settings. JV and Clear would nod in agreement and then ignore it and change the settings to what they wanted. According to Jacques, he and Clear would even change the numbers on some bits to make Head think they were using what he (Head) wanted! Frentzen had no such opportunity because Head was Frentzen's engineer. Too bad for him...

[nojvnof1 0]

There certainly are drivers who have only won once and have fought hard for it. There are always exceptions. However winning the second demonstrates that the first was not luck.

True, however has Jacques really had an honest chance to fight for that second title. Very rarely do drivers in cars outside the top 2 or 3 cars of that given year win a race, let alone a title, and since '97 Jacques has not had a race winning car. Only now is he in a seemingly competitive car.

It's done all the time. Because he was in a dominant car, there are still people that believe it was the car, not the driver, who won the WDC. Had he, in the following years, even looked like he did in '97 then perhaps this woud be different.

He looked better in 1999 and 2000, he was in the wrong car, admittedly I totally concede of his own doing. Many observers, some who became some of JV's harshest critics, were crying out for JV to move to a top team and were praising his performances. Goodness knows what he would have done had he moved to McLaren for example instead of BAR. He drove sublimely in 2000, far more consistent than '97, mostly due I believe to the extra few years of experience he gained.

Also, if memory serves, Jacques won from two laps down. That, my friend, is quite a feat and very rare.

Your memory serves you well. Jacques won the 1995 Indy 505 He was two laps down and got those back all himself, not through Safety Cars.

So, too, Jacques. Only a return to winning form will silence the critics on his racecraft. Only another championship will silence the nay-sayers that claim '97 was due to his car.

I doubt it. Many of those naysayers would still find something to criticse just because it's Jacques!

[demonhorse 0]

In my opinion, the drivers who are multiple champion material are not necessarily the fastest but the most consistent, the ones who bang in a top drive race in race out, don't make mistakes and don't get fazed by a winning streak. Based on this i would say that behind Michael and Fernando the most likely for minimum double champion status are Kimi and Jenson.

Kimi and Jensen have both made plenty of mistakes, and I still think Kimi is very much overrated and has yet to prove himself as a WDC. Jensen, I don't know when, but I hope his time will come.

Also, Mika Hakkinen's second title was made a little easier when Schumacher broke his leg at Silverstone, although I accept this is probably an exception to above comments. That said, I still think he was fully deserving of it.