Point standings. The measure of greatness?

[TheGreatJuan]

Say it clearly if the final standings are the way to measure greatness.

It has been argued that Ralfie was better than Juan in 2001 and almost the same in 2002. Yet Kimi is reckoned as equal, if not better, than Heidfeld and DC in spite of being beaten in the point standings.

[Barbazza]

Greatness can only be measured when you take into account points scoring in a season and circumstances. Clearly scoring 20 points in the 2002 Minardi would be good grounds for claiming a driver was 'greater' than, for example, Ralf - despite scoring fewer points over the season.

[Wrex]

Points are'nt 100% acurate, but they are good enough for us to decide you is WDC.

I'm sure someone can come in here and list 20 examples of where the points did'nt represent the championship acurately, but there are 500 examples where it did.

The reality is that it's the only system we have. If someone can come up with a system that takes into account misfortune, car failure, car superiority & consistancy then I'm sure the FIA would love to here it.

The only time we argue about the accuracy of points is when it does'nt favour a driver we are partial to.

When that driver is WDC, it's fine again.

[Red]

We seem to forget that F1 is a sport. The set of rules is quite simple, the guy that aquires most points after a given number of races is the winner. Since is something that involves more than a qualifying lap, long term strategy is involved too. Since is something that involves more than a qualifying lap, the 'luck' element tends to lose importance as well. So yes, I would say that point standings is a measure of greatness.

However. Not everything is just black or white. You gave an example, David vs Kimi. He certainly did well. Given his age and racing experience. But certainly David is a better driver than Kimi. He brought more points. IF Kimi has more potential and is more talented than David that's a completely different business, but right now, David is a better driver and scores more points, both for himself and for the team. (just as a paranthesis; I am 100% confident that should David be in fronty of Michael, at Magny Cours 2002, he could keep position)

I will bring another example: Mika Hakkinen in 2001. According to every standard (blind statistics I mean) Mika is a lousy driver. However, given his previous records, including 2 WDC in a row, that assumption is not correct.

After just a season we are not able to judge who is better. (Kimi vs Nick). On one hand. On the other, considering that Ron decided that 10 million US $ is not a big price for an almost teenager, I say that his judgement is more qualified than ours. Besides, in 2002 Kimi certainly scored more points than Nick.

[TheGreatJuan]

In other words. Yes when your fav drivers finishes in front and no when your fav driver finishes behind?

[Speed]

Points, WDC, WDC, points...

I don´t think "greatness" is measured by points/WDCs.
Gilles was one of the "BEST" racers in F1 world, and he didn´t get any WDC. And IMHO he was far better than actual WDC (4 WDC + 1 WDC stolen)

[Red]

Originally posted by TheGreatJuan
In other words. Yes when your fav drivers finishes in front and no when your fav driver finishes behind?

:confused: No. In other words you may have a favorite driver who is not a Champion. But to claim that whoever 'most talented and entertaining to watch' is the 'greatest driver ever' is a bit childish. In both situations: he has never driven a car and he has several championships competed, but he 'did not have the best car'.

[golem]

No. Yes when the race is fairly uneventful, no when something beyond any driver's control or due to one's lack of control (eg: Ralf's misdemeanor in Melbourne) happens. Webber really was in no way going to get points this year other than through luck. But, as it happens he got them. Sato needed a bit too to get his. But in funny ways didn't those two driver's really deserve it? I mean, Sato had a shockers first half and I thought he was going to be a waste but his last half, he showed some balls that is all to lacking in F1. I hope to god Honda honour his contract to race later. And Webber, well, he proved over the year he can hold that frail Minardi together reasonably well and when he's not worrying about parts or the thing going kaput, he can race it too.
Then some driver's missed out. McNish for example, when he was running strong a few times he had mechanical fails. Same for Kimi. Then some just are plain wierd, like Irvine's high scoring finish. Part luck, part him racing better that day than for a while.

In general the points are relatively decent indicators within a team but it's such an easy sport to argue either way in any comparison.

[TheGreatJuan]

Juan and Kimi have the same number of races in F1. Why your difference in opinion?

[Red]

Originally posted by TheGreatJuan
Juan and Kimi have the same number of races in F1. Why your difference in opinion?

Easy. Firstly there's not much of a difference in my opinion. Secondly, Kimi is not a CART champion and third Kimi was NOT hailed as the second coming; as a matter of facts he was seen as a big mistake. I would say, and I wouldn';t be very much mistaking, that Kimi performed better than expected and JPM below expectations.

[Lee Janotta]

Well, Juan Pablo is a lot more experienced than Kimi, as he was a Williams tester, raced F3000, and won the Indy 500 and the Champcar series. Kimi was brought into Sauber's F1 team straight out of Formula Renault. On the other hand, Kimi's car hasn't blown up nearly as often as Juan's.

Points can never determine greatness. Gilles Villeneuve and Ronnie Peterson would be rated _very_ low if one just looked at their points, but arguably were robbed of a championship each by team orders. Likewise drivers who died _very_ early in their careers like Stefan Bellof but, but truly had the spark of greatness.

If Senna had survived, given the performance of Adrian Newey's designs and Renault power throughout the mid to late '90s, can there be any doubt he would have won 5 WDCs?

Emmerson Fittipaldi and Jackie Stewart voluntarily cut their careers short for personal reasons. But their prowess behind the wheel places them among the elite.

Some of the early champions could have had even more success had their careers not been cut short by the war, or the late resumption of Grand Prix racing. Fangio was in his forties before he won the first of his 5 World Championships.

Schumacher's stats will put him atop the heap, but you'd have to be a complete idiot to consider him the greatest ever, because there _is_ no greatest, just a plateau of elite drivers who on any given day could take an average race car and make it do magnificent things.

[TheGreatJuan]

Yeah right. Specially by dropping off the track with only 4 laps to go and driving into Sato on qualifying.

Juan Finished as the best of the rest behind the Brawn-Byrne mobiles. That and his 7 poles are more than what people with reasonable good knowledge of F1 would have expected.

[BootsOntheSide]

The competition level is much fiercer today than in the fifties, most of the grid in Fangio's day was full of amateurs in under-developed machinery, yet today all the teams have massive funding, though some more massive than others :-(

On the other hand, any one of the leading drivers could've won the last 2 titles in a current Ferrari, just as only McLaren were ever going to win in 84, 88 or 89, and Williams in 92-93 and 96. Those titles aren't worth as much as one like Schuamcher in 1995, taking his second title in a car much inferior to the Williams (although it
was only against Damon Hill)

Prost's stats are quite impressive, more so than Michael's in my mind, as he almost always had a strong team-mate, and actively encouraged Ron Dennis to sign Senna in 1988. he had 2 years with Senna, 2 with Lauda, and 1 with Mansell. Schumacher, like Senna when he was at Lotus, insists on inferior team-mates to make his record look better.

You need to add a bit of intellegence and analysis to the situation ebfore you can say someone's better, jsut ebcause they have more points.

[neilap]

Points IMO has very little to do with the measure of a drivers greatness. Unfortunately its the only tool which we, the general public have to scrutinize drivers.

The teams have all the feed back from the car and drivers input while racing. Great drivers not only need to be fast but also need to respond well in adverse conditions. It takes experience to be great at whatever you do. Therefore MS can be considered great. Kimmi has the potential to be great. I think JPM is on the verge of greatness too. If we had the feed back that the computers on the cars give to the pits I think we may be surprised who has the best car control and who is able to raise the bar when they need to.

Points are just the beginning of the story. JV is a driver that I would say has moments of greatness. However he is a little too much on the edge to be called great IMO. DC is the same in my book but for the opposite reason. He shows moments of brilliance too but is usually not close enough to the edge.

[TheGreatJuan]

How is the Benetton 95 much inferior to the Williams? They had the same engine and they had Brawn-Byrne tailoring a car for Schumi. What was inferior?

In fact if was so good that Schumi banned Herbert from looking at his data because it was getting hard to keep him behind. With the Schumi treatement I think Herbert would have easily won in 95.

[R]

Point standings are not the measure of greatness. The measure of greatness is when a driver repeatedly places a car where it's not supposed to be (that is, better than it's supposed to be).

[TheGreatJuan]

Originally posted by R
Point standings are not the measure of greatness. The measure of greatness is when a driver repeatedly places a car where it's not supposed to be (that is, better than it's supposed to be).

Like Juan putting that crappy Williams in pole 7 times.

[R]

For example.

[Lee Janotta]

Originally posted by BootsOntheSide
Those titles aren't worth as much as one like Schuamcher in 1995, taking his second title in a car much inferior to the Williams (although it
was only against Damon Hill)

I have to take issue with this. The '95 Benneton was a Rory Byrne designed car, engineered by Ross Braun, and powered by the same Renault as the Williams. Byrne performed his usual brilliance with the car, perfectly refining a simple concept of a car. It was a bit loose in the rear, but had better front grip than the Williams. Herbert used the car to great effect at Silverstone to beat Coultard's Williams, as much proof as I need that the cars were on equal footing.

If we go further... In '94 Schumacher had a very good Rory Byrne design, as well as illegal traction control and a modified refueling rig, both unfair advantages which more than made up for the power deficit of the Ford-Cosworth engine. And he still threw the championship away in Adelaide by running off the course and into the wall, and had to drive Hill into the wall on the next corner to take the championship.

In '96, Schumacher _did_ has an inferior car in the Ferrari, and although he managed a few victories, was out of the championship hunt.

In '97, Byrne and Braun were back, but they didn't arrive early enough to make the car one of their own. This, I feel was Schumacher's most impressive year, especially at Monaco, where he simply drove away from the field and never looked back, although he did spin the car with only a lap to go. But at Jerez, he again marred his record with a repeat of the Adelaide '94 debacle, trying this time to take out Villeneuve.

In '98 and '99, the Ferrari was not quite the match of the McLarens, still down a bit on power. But it was a competent car.

In '00, the car was every bit as good as the McLarens, and the '01 and '02 cars have totally eclipsed the rest of the field in speed and reliability.

Schumacher's a great driver, he established that back at Spa in '92 with his first win. But he lacks a champion's strength of character. And due credit _must_ be given to Braun and Byrne, the technical wizards who've been with him every successful season of his career.

[Damon]

To win the championship you need everything to be work at once. The WDC is a somewhat spurious title nowdays with the drivers having possibly 25% to do with the final result. It's a shame but it's a situation that the FIA have created, basically through lazyness.

[Snrub]

Even when everything with the car works perfectly and everything else goes smoothly there's a certain amount of luck involved in everything in racing. There are times when even then the points don't do justice to a driver.

Points are a measure of driver, but they're not the exclusive measure.

[Damon]

G. Villeneuve. A case in point.

[Wrex]

Originally posted by Lee Janotta
On the other hand, Kimi's car hasn't blown up nearly as often as Juan's.

Actually according to Forix Juan has had 10 mechanical failures in 34 starts to Kimi's 12 in 33 starts. Juan also leads Kimi 5-3 in collisions that were race ending.

Originally posted by TheGreatJuan
Like Juan putting that crappy Williams in pole 7 times.

Ok GreatJuan, you keep repeating this great accomplishment and I think you need to put some perspective on it.

While the Williams was not the match for the F12002 in race trim, it was no slouch in qualifying. The Tyres (which many attribute to Ferrari's success) were just as big a contributing factor to Williams and McLarens qualifying times as they were to Ferraris' race pace.

Some actual facts for you to ponder.

The Williams, in Qualifying trim, was on averager only 0.35% off the Ferrari's (or about 0.28 seconds). McLaren were 1.03% off Ferrari (or about 0.824 seconds). I'm sure you'll agree that was a narrower margin than in race trim.

Secondly, Juan only out qualified Ralf 9-8 and on aggrigate, Ralf was faster. 7 poles and the fastest ever lap is very impressive (and demonstrates how fast Monty can be straight out of the box) but I think it needs to be put into perspective. Going really really fast half the time and going slower on others is'nt exactly the markings of a legend.

[Liz]

No -- not when you can have clauses in contracts compelling some people to hand over their points to others. Only when points must be earned on the track in honest racing can they accurately reflect the driving ability of the "winner".

Gilles Villeneuve is considered one of the greatest racers ever, and so in some minds is Jean Alesi. Yet in points they lag behind lesser lights who scored more points against weaker fields.

[alfasud]

Only one thing is for certain..... the people who are claiming that points don't count will be saying that the points are *proof* that their driver is the greatest, when and *if* he wins the WDC.