[Driver] Defending Worst F1 champions

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

A pretty pointless topic to discuss.If the champion isn't thought worthy,why would the others,with fewer points be more deserving of the title?Luck and breakdowns don't elevate a driver in the standings-the man with the most points at the end of the season beat the rest.

Because there's no Grand Prix until two weeks on Sunday, there's only so much 'traffic' we can get out of Ricciardo going to Renault and Lance Stroll buying Force India. It's just a way of passing the time...

[Akrapovic]

lol, I'm going to bow out of this thread as it's a bit weird. Can't really discuss it as MTW seems to think everything is a direct reply to him rather than an actual discussion, so everything is a strawman fallacy and putting words in his mouth.

Well, no...just trying to actually have a discussion, because there's not a huge amount to go on. This kinda just the Damon Hill appreciation society at the moment, saying why Damon is so good and a YouTube video upset them. There's a difference between a strawman fallacy and attempting to add a bit more content to the quite thin discussion.

I thought it'd an interesting discussion (although not worth much - it'd just be fun) but it seems we have a script to stick to here.

Damon is fine. Not amazing. Not terrible. Had some great drives. Had some terrible drives. Averaged out to fine. Not much better than DC or JV, so could've went through his career without a title. Stars aligned, he won it...that's about all i can pull from this strawman.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

Because there's no Grand Prix until two weeks on Sunday, there's only so much 'traffic' we can get out of Ricciardo going to Renault and Lance Stroll buying Force India. It's just a way of passing the time...

Got it. Spot on.

[BSchneiderFan]

As long as there is motorsport and the Internet, people will have their heroes and villains. See any thread on here involving Max Verstappen and Daniel Ricciardo.

[loon]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

I think Button qualifies way more for this than Hill.

Yeah and I think Naoki Yamamoto is carrying him a bit this season as well

[MTW]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

There's a difference between a strawman fallacy and attempting to add a bit more content to the quite thin discussion.

All I was saying is that you seemed to imply I was saying things or tried to raise shadow-men in my place who say it. The point is if nobody said only the championship standings count, if I didn't, and nobody else did, then the only reason to mention it is to imply that is somehow my argument.

EXAMPLE;
Bob; "I think this guy is strong."
Jane: "Women are strong too, probably stronger than him."
Bob; "I am not saying anything about that."
Jane; "I know, I am just discussing things."
Bob; "But then why bring in an issue that wasn't mentioned"
Jane: "to add to the discussion."
Bob:

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Can't really discuss it as MTW seems to think everything is a direct reply to him rather than an actual discussion, so everything is a strawman fallacy and putting words in his mouth.

It seems pretty clear you were responding to my posts even if you say otherwise because you directly responded to specific things I said.

Originally Posted by A

lol, I'm going to bow out of this thread as it's a bit weird

I don't see what's weird, I made a post giving my opinion of Hill as a champion, you responded to it with counter-claims and I responded to your counter-claims. Can't see why it's weird. You're free to dispute my claims and I'm free to dispute yours, that's what a discussion board is about. Though perhaps I am used to discussion boards a bit less LOOSE than this one, so I shall try to cut out any esoteric language that might come across as, "weird" if that helps.

I guess I am to used to debate boards, where it is more debate than discussion, but it is obviously a bit more relaxed here judging by peoples style of writing.

[Adam43]

I feel we are pretty close to a Monty Python sketch except Akrapovic hasn’t paid the pound.

[Akrapovic]

Does the recipient of said pound now accept PayPal? If so, where do I send the pound?

Anyway I think it's clear a real discussion was never really intended here. I thought it'd be a fun discussion. Completely pointless as you need to discuss alternate realities for it to work but fun none the less. That's not the script though.

[MTW]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I do like Damon Hill but if he hadn't won the title I doubt many would have said he totally deserved it. He only won it in 1996 because Schumachers car was blowing up on formation laps, his 1995 teammate who was beginning to give him real trouble was shipped off to McLaren

I think this was the first time alternate realities is mentioned, by implication. Because basically it's to argue, "if Schumacher had not blown up, if Coulthard had not been shipped off, then Hill wouldn't have won."

You're basically saying, Akrapovic, "Hill wouldn't have won if those things had not happened." Which is to appeal to an alternate universe.

But my question is, how do you know Hill wouldn't have won?

[MTW]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I feel we are pretty close to a Monty Python sketch except Akrapovic hasn’t paid the pound

Because I analyse someone's reasoning? I'm not sure there's much point in many of the posts people make, they tend to see a proper discussion or debate over a point as something strange.

Am I supposed to come up with one-liners about ten words long for each post? I am sorry if a discussion is somehow an odd and strange thing to people. I shall stick only to posts with ten words from now on, which contain little content, such as comments about Monty Python.,

But I only say these things for discussion, I am not saying them directly to anyone, and I am only saying these things so it can be a fun discussion.

[Peter Mallett]

If you didn't come here to argue, what did you come here for?

[BSchneiderFan]

This is all a bit meta, arguing about having an argument. Count me out, lads.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

If you didn't come here to argue, what did you come here for?

I came to complain.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I came to complain.

Complain? Have you seen these shoes?

[dsg]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I came to complain.

This isn't an argument!

https://youtu.be/Lvcnx6-0GhA

[Peter Mallett]

Yes it is.

[MTW]

Apologies to Akrapovic if my posts came across as too strict/gripey. I have an obsession with correctness that can make me a bit too serious at times. I am happy for the discussion to be more relaxed.

I will make one comment about Coulthard, I am glad he was mentioned, as I haven't made a model bust of Coulthard yet, and the Scottish themed helmet would be a challenge to paint. So perhaps I could make him next. I love liveries on F1 drivers, and they're my favourite artwork and I don't know why I have never done a DC bust, it might make a nice piece. He also wouldn't be able to crash unless he fell off my shelf.

( kidding)

[Skam85]

Well, at least we can agree Vettel isn’t the worst champion of all time......

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by MTW

Apologies to Akrapovic if my posts came across as too strict/gripey. I have an obsession with correctness that can make me a bit too serious at times. I am happy for the discussion to be more relaxed.

No need to apologise at all. I wasn't offended or anything like that, so please don't worry about an apology (although the gesture is appreciated!)

I also like a good debate (some here will say argument...), but I don't think this subject suits it. For example, the debate on the ACO EoT and can only really be had with facts, figures and regulations. So there's some evidence that can be built up in that discussion - and it's only really worth having that debate when it's relevant. No point in discussing it in 15 years.

That's why I thought this thread was a bit of fun. It can't possibly be serious, discussing something that old. It can't really be backed up with facts and figures as well (although I gave it a go with the DC points loss due to car failures). So I assumed it was just a bit of fun and worth throwing around some ideas with no merit. I also didn't think there was much to go on, hence the extrapolation of points to include additional info, for fun.

If it's meant to be a serious thread then that's cool - go for it. It's not really for me (which is fine!), but I think you'd struggle to keep that thread going here. But by all means, have at it.

Glad the bold function works though! Worth testing ths sort of stuff!

[coppice]

'worst champion ' belongs with 'undeserving winner' as being almost oxymoronic . If you win , you win and that means you've beaten all the rest. No woudla shoulda coulda crap - racing results are just that . Some drivers benefit from the best car - often the most highly rated drivers of course - but the 'well he had the best car' sneer tends not to be aimed at the Clarks and Sennas , but to (both ) Hills, Villeneuve (fils) and near forgotten (by some ) guys like Hulme.



As far as Damon Hill is concerned I won't hide my admiration for the man -

- having a national treasure for your father means you grow up in a very long shadow

- very rarely in F1 , Hill had the intelligence , humility and maturity freely to admit that Senna and Schumacher were far better then he was . No names , but we all know of drivers who feel they have been beaten by a team mate because a sponsor preferred him , or had access to more data , wasn't as 'political' (ie not as smart ) and so on .

- his book is not only better written by far than virtually any other F1 driver's , it is also brutally honest about the author's own shortcomings and fears . That takes balls.



Hill the driver ? Of course some have been faster/ better for longer but anybody who drove like Hill did at Suzuka 94 is the real deal to me

[Adam43]

Apologises MTW, it was just a little joke, but one that contained a hint that the thread would benefit from not being about what a discussion is, but rather about the topic. Which is what we all want.

The thread has potential to be interesting and I look forward to the quality debate and discussion when it comes.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The thread has potential to be interesting and I look forward to the quality debate and discussion when it comes.

Agreed - and you only have to read the post by coppice (above) to see that.


(But I still insist I paid for a further 5 minutes....... )

[Adam43]

Yes, that be a good post.

Most things I shall add to this thread have been said above.

The premise of the thread is a little odd to me, albeit one we’ve seen quite a few times. Yes, some people like to be negative about other people, but here we are talking about a world champion. Oddly it was not anyone here who was being negative toward Damon at the moment. While in absolute you can have a worst champion, it is pointless as expressed above, because in those years they are the, er, champion! This point has already been made. So, who could be worst? Damon Hill, the topic of the thread, or Button (odd suggestion for someone who in other years gave Hamilton a run for his money, Hulme, Farina, Rosberg, Hunt? All drivers you would not say were the best at their time, but hey they are world champions. Sorry, World Champions.

OK. So Damon. Well, he was not the best in his ‘era’. That was Schumacher, by far. But crikey he was quick. And had some great races, not only in 1996 either (remember Japan 1994). He had strength of character, especially in 1994 to motivate Williams and respond to tragedy and also in 1996 to bounce back after a bad 1995.

He acquired himself well against all his teammates, even Prost. Odd DC was mentioned as compare the win tally for the races they were together!

The Williams was a top car, the best that year, so what? That’s motorsport for you.

In 1996 he drove fantastically. What let him down? Spain and Italy. A stupid mistake in Italy after a fighting first few laps.

Then there was Monaco, how cruel. And Silverstone. I suppose quite often his starts were poor, but then so were Villeneuve’s.

The later half of the season were against the backdrop of being dropped by Williams.

He had far fewer poor races than Villeneuve and for more good races.

Suzuka was sublime.

So, in conclusion, the concept of worst champion is barely worth discussing. The only logical way to defeat the premise is to suggest an alternative I’m not going to.

Did Damon deserve a world championship? Yes, see above. Did he win one? Yes, 1996 and it was great.

[Akrapovic]

I see where Sprinkles was coming from with Jenson. In his pre-title years, he became a mediocre driver at best. Some years he was properly terrible. If the Brawn hadn't lucked into the car it was, he wouldn't have won the title. So I do get that.

On the other hand, he drove faultlessly once presented with the opportunity to take the title, and made the most of it. What more can he do?

I see Jenson Button the same way I see Damon Hill, DC, JFV and Mark Webber. Had any of these drivers won a title, it wouldn't be considered underserved. Had any of them not won it, they wouldn't say they 100% should've won a title. They're on that verge of "maybe they will, maybe they won'". Damon and JFV did. Jenson almost didn't and did. Webber and DC didn't. In some slightly different circumstances, that could've flipped around.

I think Damon clouded his career towards the end too. Adam points out he had great strength of character through 94-96 (and I'd add 97 to that), but then that strength disappeared and we had a soap opera of nonsense about if he's going to retire or not. That did have an effect (rightly or wrongly) on how people saw him. But is it fair to judge a 1996 title on a 1999 action? Probably not.

[Adam43]

When he dragged that shitbox of an Arrows onto the grid in Australia 1997. Top stuff. Didn’t nee to fall over or weep about it either.

End of 1999. It was not nice to watch, but I think ultimately he didn’t know what to do with himself. As much as others might not have liked it I suspect Damon didn’t either. He had a contract, but wanted to leave. He was a racing driver who was about to not be. You try to prepare yourself through your whole career to become a champion. You don’t practice how to retire.

[Jenson, fame came quickly to him and he didn’t react well. Then he finished off JFV (as you say, middle name Fred eh?), but was stuck in a middle of the road car. But when the chance of win cake he took it and, as you say, when a chance of a championship came he also took it. By then he’d grown up and delivered for the rest of his career.]