[Driver] Defending Worst F1 champions

[S griffin]

Damon in 99, he just wanted to knock on his head, like Hunt the Shunt had, but EJ wouldn’t let him

Jenson looked very good 2004, if only the Ferraris weren’t so dominant that season

[E.B]

Jenson was also quite handy at McLaren, near enough matching Lewis on GP wins (9-8) in their time together. Jenson also in their time together at McLaren scored more points than Lewis.
People seem to feel Jenson's success was all about Brawn.... overlooking that most of Jenson's GP wins were not achieved at Brawn.

[Oldtony]

Getting back to a more general interpretation of the thread copice brought up an interesting name

near forgotten (by some ) guys like Hulme.

Denny is perhaps the most underated of all the world champs.
Interestingly he beat his team-mate to the title and that team-mate was also the team owner and principal.
Says something for the attitude of both of them to team orders.
The car was good, it was reliable but no one could ever say that the second year of the Repco Brabham was the dominant car, and a read of the entry lists indicates that there was some talent on the grids.

What was the reason for Denny not becoming as celebrated a champion as his performances perhaps deserved.
More people seem to recall Chris Amon for his bad luck than Denny for his siccess if we are talking Kiwis, and in fact Hulme seems to be better known in the States than in most of the world because of his performances in CanAm.
Certainly he was not an outgoing personality but you would think he would be recognized more alongside some of the other one time champs.

[Skam85]

Yeah, I actually have Button ahead of Hill.

[BSchneiderFan]

JB wasted some of the best years of his career with poor team choices, unfortunately. It seemed (to me) fitting that he should be rewarded with a title at Brawn. His time at McLaren was very much to his credit, and it remains the case that he and Rosberg are the only drivers ever, in any category of car racing, to beat Lewis Hamilton in the same equipment.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

To me that says more about Hamilton than either Button or Rosberg.

[BSchneiderFan]

I think you’d be in a minority there.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Indeed, most people seem to rate Button higher than I do as well.

[S griffin]

Button was a very good driver, no doubt about it, but never seemed to push the car to the limit, when it was not to his liking. Not like Hamilton

[Razzzor]

Hill came in as rookie in 1993 and put in some decent performances alongside Prost, a definite GOAT. 3 wins and only finished off the podium in 1 race (4th at Suzuka). Had he been better at qualifying he maybe would have finished 2nd in points, as he was only 4 points away from Senna.

The end of 1994 the vastly more experienced Nige couldn't keep up with him, and really that 1994 decider, Hill was closing on Schumacher.

He was a good driver. Probably not faster than JV on raw speed, but JV seemed to have other issues.

Jenson is in the same league as Hill I think. Maybe slightly better.

In fact if Massa had won that 2007 title, he probably would have been the worst champion at least since 1990s. Prior to that there probably are a lot more worse champions because reliability played such a major role.

But since the 90s, excusing the 2005 McLarens that broke down every race, and maybe Schumacher's 1995 campaign, basically the fastest car has won every year since then. Definitely not the case before the 90s. Look at Renault in 1982.

[BSchneiderFan]

Damon wasn’t a *total* rookie in 1993; he’d scraped into a couple of races for Brabham in 1992.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

Damon wasn’t a *total* rookie in 1993; he’d scraped into a couple of races for Brabham in 1992.

Those things were pretty desperate, I think we can consider him a rookie in 1993.

[BSchneiderFan]

Of course, both he and DC had done serious testing miles for Williams before stepping up to race seats, back in the day when being a test driver meant something.

[Akrapovic]

Yeah, but that was standard for rookies back then. Someone here once said JFV wasn't a rookie because he had a lot of testing - as if the other rookies hadn't. Hill and DC especially did.

Testing is all well and good, but it isn't racing.

[Nononsensecapeesh]

Damon Hill is not the worst World Champion, I don't even think there is one, if there is then it's possibly Phil Hill.

[BSchneiderFan]

Well, logically there must BE a worst world champion, even if it isn’t a particularly helpful perspective. Harsh on Hill, P., I think. On a separate note, Fittipaldi doesn’t get much love when people look back, I don’t know why. Perhaps because his Zf1 career fizzled out with Copersucar?

[Nononsensecapeesh]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

Well, logically there must BE a worst world champion, even if it isn’t a particularly helpful perspective. Harsh on Hill, P., I think. On a separate note, Fittipaldi doesn’t get much love when people look back, I don’t know why. Perhaps because his Zf1 career fizzled out with Copersucar?

Not saying Phil Hill was a bad driver but made bad choices in his career after his 1961 title. Plus he only ever won 3 races and only 98 career points as a result of said bad choices.

[Adam43]

Yes, you can argue there must be a worst champion. However, it is as impossible to identify as the best. Perhaps it isn’t possible as the competition varies and the actual requirements and situations and context vary over the years too.

One other reason why this is a daft topic is that is based on the negative rather than the positive. Arguing who is the best focuses on the virtues. This concentrates on the negatives. Which, I believe shows more about the poster than the topic of discussion. Having said that this was, I think, started to debunk the theory and list positives. Many best driver discussions focus on why someone isn’t the best by pointing out their failing. Perhaps rarely do people want to say why things are good.

Well that has thoroughly depresssed me with the state of the human condition.

[Nononsensecapeesh]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Yes, you can argue there must be a worst champion. However, it is as impossible to identify as the best. Perhaps it isn’t possible as the competition varies and the actual requirements and situations and context vary over the years too.

One other reason why this is a daft topic is that is based on the negative rather than the positive. Arguing who is the best focuses on the virtues. This concentrates on the negatives. Which, I believe shows more about the poster than the topic of discussion. Having said that this was, I think, started to debunk the theory and list positives. Many best driver discussions focus on why someone isn’t the best by pointing out their failing. Perhaps rarely do people want to say why things are good.

Well that has thoroughly depresssed me with the state of the human condition.

Why should there even have to be a worst F1 Champ?

[BSchneiderFan]

Because if you take a group of individuals then logically one of them must be the worst at something. It doesn’t make it a useful exercise but there it is.

[Nononsensecapeesh]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

Because if you take a group of individuals then logically one of them must be the worst at something. It doesn’t make it a useful exercise but there it is.

MMM HMMM...

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Nononsensecapeesh

Why should there even have to be a worst F1 Champ?

Deep.

That was what I was discussing. It more followed on from BSchneiderFan’s post where he pointed out there must logically be one. I thought was a valid point, as was his comment about it not being a helpful perspective. I was elaborating on that.

[S griffin]

I can see why someone would say Phil Hill, the Ferrari was so dominant that season, the only thing that beat it, was the genius of Stirling Moss

[Skam85]

Agree with Adam, apologies to ASCII but if we’re going worst it’s probably JV. But that is similar to P.Hill, in the sense that was down to career choices rather than ability. Wasn’t there a McLaren seat on offer for JV at one point?

[BSchneiderFan]

The BAR project was what killed Villeneuve’s career. Craig Pollock was hopelessly out of his depth, Adrian Reynard vastly overrated his organisation’s capabilities, the Mecachrome engine was outdated and Honda, when they came along, took years to get up to speed. But JV, one assumes, chased the dollars. Look where it got him.