|
Whilst I'm sure they were 'all honourable in those days', I know of no other driver who declined a World Championship when offered to him because only he knew that he would have been winning it unfairly - least of all after having come close 3 years in a row.
'Always' was the word originally used, and I don't see deeks having made any attempt to revise that. His argument is that the top 27 drivers of all time are the 27 world champions, which I would say is completely inaccurate. The 27 drivers who've won the most racesd would be just as good a base to start from (although that is obviously biased against the guys who raced before the 16-race stanard began in the mid-60s)
As for 2003, I'm pretty sure that if Kimi had not retired from the lead at the Nurburgring, and Michael had not been allowed to resume after beaching the car in the gravel, he would ahve been champion under a 10-6-4-3-2-1 system. Even as it was, the new points system only meant the championship went to the final round rather than the penultimate one. The points work both ways - Michael scored for 8th in Hungary whereas I think Kimi didn't come 7th or 8th all season.
|