Mosley: Kimi Could Be Unfair WDC

[BootsOntheSide]

My suggestion has always been 12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1, which gives a 33% gap between first and second - simialr to the old system.

Would Kimi have bene that undeserving? His points/finish ratio was the best of all, he was in the third best car, only retired by his own mistake once, lost a surefire Nurburgring victory, would've won Indy under enormous pressure had it not rained, and had an excessive punishment at Melbourne. All that from a guy in only his fourth full season of any kind of racing.

[Gt_R]

It's NOT that Kimi doesn't deserve the WDC, If he won it, yes, it is deserving.... BUT it is "unfair" because somebody else (in this case Michael) deserve it just that bit more than Kimi does.

[Yoong Montoya]

Originally posted by BootsOntheSide
Would Kimi have bene that undeserving? His points/finish ratio was the best of all, he was in the third best car, only retired by his own mistake once, lost a surefire Nurburgring victory, would've won Indy under enormous pressure had it not rained, and had an excessive punishment at Melbourne. All that from a guy in only his fourth full season of any kind of racing.

Yeah, Kimi did well but his 2003 season was a bit like Eddie Irvine's 1999 season - both came close but both of them were only in contention due to the team and drivers with the best car screwing up too much. (McLaren and Hakkinen in 1999, Ferrari and Schumacher in 2003).

[John Turner]

Originally posted by DriverT
I think the old points system was better as it rewarded more for a win. The new points system, however, rewards for eight places rather than the old six. But we don't want points to create a farcical situation a la Nascar.

John, who do you think the "wrong" champs are, and who should the champs have been?

I have had a problem with the points system throughout the history of WDC (ie since 1950). It's been tinkered with over the years as follows:-

1950-53 8-6-4-3-2 with 1 point for fastest lap. Best 4 results to count, with variations on that theme up to 1962 when it became 9-6-4-3-2-1 until 1991 when it became 10-6-4-3-2-1. During some of this period we had the season split into 2 point scoring periods with dropped scores from each half. This was altered in 1981 when it was simplified to the best 11 results in a season. None of this has addressed the inadequacy of the reward for winning compared to placings, although the 1991 change was a move in the right direction. The 2003 reversal was a retrograde step.

In answer to the question about 'wrong' champs, the late 'Jenks' famously said that he lost interest in the outcome of the WDC when Moss lost the championship to Hawthorn, so let's start there:-

1958 Moss 4 wins, Brooks 3, Hawthorn 1 - Hawthorn is Champ.
1967 Clark 4 wins, Hulme 2 - Hulme is Champ.
1984 Prost 7 wins, Lauda 5 - Lauda is Champ.
1987 Mansell 6 wins, Piquet 3 - Piquet is Champ.
1989 Senna 6 wins, Prost 4 - Prost Champ.

I have picked only those where the margin of difference in wins is 2 or greater because I don't think one extra win, on its own necessarily justifies WDC status. The two that really stand out, of course, are Moss and Mansell, but they could so easily have been joined by Schumacher last season. Another example was 1996, when Damon Hill went into the last race with 7 wins to JVs 4, yet had Villeneuve won and Hill failed to score, JV would have been WDC.

It is not just at the very top the point system fails either. In 1992, Senna with 3 wins finished 4th in the WDC behind Schumacher with only 1 win.

Now I'm not advocating an academic exercise to establish whether the outcome of the above results would have been different with my proposed points scoring system since team and driver strategies would quite probably have differed with the different point scoring structure. However, moving forward, this issue really needs to be addressed. It won't, of course, because far too much emphasis is laid on trying, artificially, to make the Championship go down to the wire. It has little to do with actually winning races!

[deeks6]

Originally posted by John Turner

1958 Moss 4 wins, Brooks 3, Hawthorn 1 - Hawthorn is Champ.
1967 Clark 4 wins, Hulme 2 - Hulme is Champ.
1984 Prost 7 wins, Lauda 5 - Lauda is Champ.
1987 Mansell 6 wins, Piquet 3 - Piquet is Champ.
1989 Senna 6 wins, Prost 4 - Prost Champ.

It has little to do with actually winning races!

Can't agree with some of these, John. The point I (and some others) are making is that you have to reward both winning and consistency.

1958 - 11 races, Moss wins 4, 2 FL's, a 2nd and a 6th, 5 DNFs - Hawthorn 1 win but 5 2nds, a 3rd, a 5th and a 6th and 4 FL's. Moss was a bit unlucky (added by the fact that Hawthorns's teammate waved him through to 2nd to clinch the title) but Hawthorn was not an undeserving champ. If the 10-6-4-3-2-1 had been if force they would have been tied on 47 pts and Moss would have won on a countback.

1967 - Hulme finished on the podium 8 out of the 11 races with a 4th and 2 DNFs. Clark had 4 wins, a 3rd and a 6th and 5 DNFs. No point system in the world could make Clark a deserving champ that year.

1984 - Prost lost because they awarded half points for the Monaco GP. He was very unlucky, granted.

1987 - Mansell only finished 9 of the 16 GPs when 11 only counted. Like Moss, Nige had a problem with the "To finish first, first you must finish" theory. If all races counted Piquet wins by 15 points - no contest.

1989 - same story...Senna only finished 7 races. If all points counted, Prost wins by 21 points. This is a great illustration of my argument. You cannot expect to be WDC if you only finish 7 races out of 16.

1992 - not Schumacher but Mansell WDC, I think

[John Turner]

Deeks, it looks as though you don't agree with ANY of them! I didn't say that these were 'undeserving' champs, merely that those with more wins, in Moss and Mansell's cases, substantially so, were more deserving. As I said, winning Championships should be about winning races. Your comments on my examples serves to indicate to me that you feel that rewarding consistency is more important than winning. I simply don't agree. Perhaps, all these years, I have misunderstood the the purpose of winning championships which I thought was about the best and fastest car/driver combination not the most consistent, although there have been occasions where both sets of virtues have applied to the same driver, of course.

I don't understand your reference to '1992 - Mansell not Schumacher' comment. I don't think I have alluded to that season anywhere. I was merely stating that in 2003, MS could have finished on my list if Kimi had won the last race and Michael not scored despite what would have been a victories margin of 6-2 in favour of Michael.

[John Turner]

I forgot to add that I do agree that consistency does play a part in the outcome but that it should come far lower in the priorities when we come to awarding points, than any of the points scoring systems so far adopted in F1; hence my suggestion. F1 is not alone in this and we have seen 'wrong' (I use the word advisedly!) champions in NASCAR and bikes over recent years but that, I think. is deviating too far from the original thread.

[deeks6]

John, I "basically" agree with you about the winning side but to a degree. I think the drivers who are both fast and reliable are the most deserving champs. Prost and Schumacher are great examples of this, Lauda too. When you are locked in battle with great rivals, sometimes you have to look after the equipment and bring it home rather than go all out and DNF - to me that is also part of the makeup of great drivers. The only one of your examples that really could be considered unlucky is probably Moss (there is more to that story too). Prost quite likely would have lost that 84 Monaco race and the others simply didnt do enough over the whole season. But, and I emphasise this, all of your examples learned from it (well, except Moss) - Clark won the next year, Prost won the next year, Senna won the next year and Mansell a few years on. The balance cannot be skewed too heavily in favour of winning but it should also not create a situation like NASCAR 03 with Newman. As I said earlier, the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system would have seen MS wrap up the title before Suzuka and that would have been fair.

BootsOnTheSide had a good suggestion if they want to go to 8th.

The reason I mentioned 92 was because you said Senna (3 wins) came 4th to Schumacher (1 win). Mansell won the 92 title with 9 wins.

[John Turner]

Originally posted by deeks6


The reason I mentioned 92 was because you said Senna (3 wins) came 4th to Schumacher (1 win). Mansell won the 92 title with 9 wins.

What I was trying to say there was that even in the minor placings, the points system fails drivers. In 1992, Senna was 4th (not that he would have cared much!) with 3 wins, Schumacher 3rd with one win only. Mansell's WDC was, of course, unequivocal. He was a 'consistent winner' which irresistibly leads me to the comment that I am not dismissing a combination of the two requirements. Hence, I would stick with my examples. I just don't think the 10-6-4-3-2-1 provides sufficient gap, particularly as we seem generally to want to make room for 8 point scorers.

Incidentally, wasn't Brabham WDC the year after Hawthorn? Clark won his first WDC in 1963.

[deeks6]

Yep, I said "except Moss".

We'll probably have to agree to disagree, John

[John Turner]

Originally posted by deeks6
Yep, I said "except Moss".

We'll probably have to agree to disagree, John

Yes, but it was what you said after "except Moss", which was "Clark won the next year", that I was drawing attention to. Brabham won in 1959, not Clark.

Agreed we will have to agree to disagree. It's a view I have held dear for over 40 years - well since 1958, in fact, and I am unlikely to be persuaded otherwise, now! I think we do agree however, that the points award for first should be greater than it currently is, even if not to the degree that I have suggested.

[deeks6]

Certainly do John ... and I'll shout you back (Boags Premium for me and, no doubt, some warm pommy ale for you)
Cheers

[Adam43]

Max has confirm the points system is to stay as it is:
http://f1.racing-live.com/en/index.html