Is winning the most important thing

[Hungary 89]

As suggested by R in another thread I am running a poll to see how many people agree with the old saying:-

"It's not whether you win or loose but how you play the game"

Needless to say this came about during a discussion about Micheal Schumachers driving tactics

I and a number of others believe he has the talent to be considered the greatest driver of all time but we will never call him that because he is too willing to resort to tactics we consider not necessarily cheating but certainly unsporting and a gainst the spirit of the rules.

Others of you however may consider this to be old fashioned. This sort of behavior is the way of the world his record stands for itself In ten years time people will only remember the statistics.

So what do you think

Oh one more thing lets try to be objective folks lets not have another bun fight

[ASCII Man]

To me it isn't.

It's all about the game, and how you play it!
It's all about control, and if you can take it!
It's all about debt, and if you can pay it!
It's all about pain, and who's gonna make it!
(Motorhead - The Game)



Personally, i think this attitude that decent morals are old fashioned nowadays is what the world in general is going to> nobody seems to care about morals and ethics anymore these days.
All that matters is win, win, win and rolling in the cash...

The world sucks.

[KC]

In the end, Schumacher will be remembered for winning 5 or more WDC titles and nothing else. So in that respect, winning is the only thing.

To those of us that watched his career, some of his winning is colored a little by some questionable tactics. IMHO, the guy is a head above his peers. I don't think he needs to resort to anything to prove this. Apparently his ego won't allow the fact that he can be beaten at times.

Really, it all comes down to whether or not he can justify some of his actions in pursuit of the win to himself. Does it bother him what others may think of his titles? I respect his driving ability a ton. Sometimes I have a hard time respecting him as a man and a competitor. I'm sure my opinions keep him up at nights. I do recognize that some of his moves were less calculated and more instinctual because he hates to lose.

[Irv the Swerve]

Winning is really important at the level of Formula One. There is however a line that should not be crossed. I don't think Mick ever crossed it really, I mean, he was unsporting, but never really dangerous. Senna on the other hand was dangerous and he crossed the line.

I watched an interview with Mick one time where he was asked if he felt guilty about some of the things he had done and he said no, guilt wasn't one of his feelings. He excused this by citing what Senna got up to. Its a fairly weak sort of excuse if you ask me, but it shows his interpretation of the actions of Senna.

Winning, and the idea of not having any value on anything else is a flawed outlook. Winning fairly and within the rules is really what it is all about.

[John Turner]

I voted 'yes', but not because I support some of Michaels dubious tactics (inherited from Senna?) but because the points scoring system lays nothing like enough emphasis on winning races. Winning the WDC should be about winning races, not accumulating points. We've seen too many championships, right across motor racing, in recent years where the wrong driver became champion.

I agree with KC; Michael's far too good to need to resort to some of those tactics he has implemented. It is probably his only flaw and may, ultimately, rob him of the 'greatest' status.

[R]

Not much to add really, except that I don't agree with Irv the Swerve that Senna was a more dangerous driver than TGF. It's a bit sad really, when the greatest F1 driver of the late 90's/early 00's excuses his behaviour on track by citing what the greatest driver of the late 80's/early 90's got up to. And it's also sad that the driver who could well be the greatest of the late 00's and early 10's (Fernando Alonso) seems to repeat such actions which show disregard for others on track. Yes, Fernando is one of my favourite drivers, but his brake testing of DC was appalling.

Thanks for starting the poll. Needless to say, I voted "no". Trying to win with honour should be what matters - not winning at all costs. But I agree with KC that some of TGF's moves have been more instinctual than they have been calculated. The guy hates to lose, which has led to some "panic" actions over the years.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of this poll.

[John Turner]

R, I agree with you. I probably should have voted 'no' but I allowed a bit of lateral thinking to creep in. Perhaps I should have started a new thread!

[Jordi]

No. Just look at how Damon won his title. Did he ever crash, chop or cut across Jacques or any other driver? Did he blame someone else but himself? What he might lack in natural talent is obviously there in class.

[rodrigomarban]

It is the most important thing, but it's unsportsmanlike to win by cheating.

[jetsetter]

Winning is extremely important as that pays the bills but at the same time to be considered a champion sportsman you must first be a sportsman which unfortunately Michael never will be.

[Horsebox]

Anyone who has ever sat into a bucket seat knows that the only thing that drives the car is your will to win. The driver who goes out to enjoy himself will never be a true winner. The enjoyment comes from being the one holding the trophy, and no matter what you have to do to be that person, you just do it. All is fair in love and Motorsport.

[R]

It's not a question of whether the drivers enjoy themselves or not, it's a question of whether or not some sporting ethics should be observed. You can be a winner in Formula One, and still drive to a high ethical standard on the track - and Jordi mentioned one of the best examples of such a kind of driver in his reference to Damon Hill.

[Lee Janotta]

Senna punched Irvine in '93 because the Jordan rookie was driving like a complete idiot. Somehow I don't think the Swerve's a completely objective nor a credible voice on the subject of sportsmanship. It'd be a bit like a lecture on human rights from Saddam.

The question is really twofold. Winning _is_ crucially important. It's not enough to simply show and participate. If you're not in it to win, you should stay in club racing. And if you can't win in F1, you should stay at a level where you can win.

But winning for the sake of winning is not a worthwhile goal. To win by any means is a hollow victory. Winning over a weak field is pointless. Taking on the very best in the world, and beating them, in relatively equal machinery... That's a true victory, one you can really be proud of. Winning in inferior machinery, which Senna and Gilles are best remembered for... That's what you have to do to become a legend. And winning by underhanding means is a loss. A loss to yourself, a loss to your fans, and a loss to the sport.

In the final equation, the context of your victory is as important as the victory itself. Gilles Villeneuve shows that the context can even be _more_ important. One wonders how 5 WDCs, three won through sheer technological superiority, and one stolen through blatant cheating, will be remembered.

[Spudgun]

Originally posted by ®îjñtjûh
To me it isn't.

It's all about the game, and how you play it!
It's all about control, and if you can take it!
It's all about debt, and if you can pay it!
It's all about pain, and who's gonna make it!
(Motorhead - The Game)

#

Oh ®îjñtjûh, you beat me to it. I do like your taste in music! (slightly OT, sorry).

It's a hard thing to balance, since consistency can win you the WDC (á la Keke Rosberg with only one win in 1982), but on the other hand a racing driver wants to win.

I'm all up for drivers who go for the win (for those who have noticed I was and still am a Nigel Mansell fan), as long as it is kept clean..

The vote seems a bit vague,. Is it win the WDC or a single race?

[R]

Spudgun, I think you may have misunderstood the point of the poll. It's not whether or not you should aim for consistency rather than race wins in your quest for the championship, and it has nothing to do with whether or not we're talking about winning the WDC or a single race. It is whether or not you think winning itself is more important than how you win. Is it OK to ram your opponent off the track in order to try to win? Is it OK to swerve and put someone on the grass or maybe into a concrete wall in order to try to win? Or would that be a hollow victory? Should you rather aim for winning while at the same time driving to a certain ethical standard on the track. That's what we're discussing here.

[neilap]

I feel winning is the most important thing in racing. All drivers and teams push the limit of fairness. We know that they all cheat whenever they get the chance.

[Valve Bounce]

The only competitive sport I can think of where winning is not the be all and end all of taking part is sailing. Here sailors go out to race week after week, not with any intention of winning, but just out to enjoy the experience of sailing with ines friends, and enjoying the comeraderie in the main bar afterwards. In fact, some would say that some would have a masochistic inclination to go out in foul weather just to race.

Of course then there is boxing where if you are told not to win and you do, you could score a bullet in the head.

Then there is horseracing, still called a sport, where winning money is more important than a particular horse winning or is fixed not to win.

I most all other sports, there is only one goal and that is to win at all costs. In cricket, if you can't intimidate your oponent by trying to bean him, you sledge, cheat by pretending your bat or glove never touched the ball. Then of course some would prefer to enhance their performance in sport by taking drugs. I could go on. The spirit of sport has degenerated to unsport.

[f1manoz]

Originally posted by KC
In the end, Schumacher will be remembered for winning 5 or more WDC titles and nothing else. So in that respect, winning is the only thing.

I completely disagree, and I'm sure many others will.

In the future, I'll remember him for incidents like Adelaide 1994, Jerez 1997 and a whole collection of incidents of dirty tactics, dirty driving and cheating.

(However, I don't want to turn this into another one of those threads...)

Lee's final paragraph sums it all up for me. (Geez, that's the third time I've agreed with him. Some cosmic force eh?)

[ralf fan]

Winning is important but it is more important to win fairly and not by underhanded methods.I voted NO.

[ljakse]

Originally posted by KC
In the end, Schumacher will be remembered for winning 5 or more WDC titles and nothing else. So in that respect, winning is the only thing.

Winning is just a part of it, otherwise, no one would ever mention Gilles, or Moss nowdays.

Originally posted by Lee Janotta

But winning for the sake of winning is not a worthwhile goal. To win by any means is a hollow victory. Winning over a weak field is pointless. Taking on the very best in the world, and beating them, in relatively equal machinery... That's a true victory, one you can really be proud of. Winning in inferior machinery, which Senna and Gilles are best remembered for... That's what you have to do to become a legend. And winning by underhanding means is a loss. A loss to yourself, a loss to your fans, and a loss to the sport.

In the final equation, the context of your victory is as important as the victory itself. Gilles Villeneuve shows that the context can even be _more_ important. One wonders how 5 WDCs, three won through sheer technological superiority, and one stolen through blatant cheating, will be remembered.

Well, I know what I will be saying to my grandkids one day - and I'm not going to say 'he was on of the greatest'.

[corkholio]

Winning is winning as long as it's done within the rules set in stone (or that aren't made up on the spot by Malaysian stewards or biased fans).

Senna and Prost were more than happy to bend the rules and also have clear #2s, but yet why are they thought of as two of the greatest ever? Because they won, period.

[tally-bally-ho]

Winning has to be the main objective for every racing driver in F1. All the "spirit of the rules" stuff is down to personal preferences, the rules that must be obeyed are the ones written down on paper. Unfortunately most of these rules are open to interpretation, just like the law is, which means that any personal view can be backed up with the relevant rule interpretation.

It is entirely predictable that personal judgements on incidents such as Adelaide '94 and Jerez '97 will be biased depending on which of the 2 drivers is favoured by the person judging.

As for the earlier remark about Damon Hill, anyone who saw him before he had by far the best car in F1 will know how good he really was, i.e. not very. Does anyone seriously think he or JV got to F1 on merit alone? It is easy to look graceful and rule abiding when you have an equipment advantage, only the real fighting racers can win in a car that shouldn't.

[R]

I don't think there's much doubt about Jerez 97, as Schumacher was stripped of all his points that year for trying to take Jacques off, and later admitted himself that he did it deliberately. So there's no point in reaching a different conclusion for anybody as long as the man himself has owned up to that one (pretty much as pointless as keeping the Senna v Prost bunfight alive when they themselves made up before Senna died).

As for Damon Hill, since you generalize and say "anyone who saw him before he had by far the best car" etc., I'll make the same generalization and say that anyone who saw him when he had by no means the best car, scoring Jordan's maiden win at Spa 98, and nearly winning in a *******g Arrows at Hungary 97, will know that he's a lot better than what apparently many give him credit for. He had too many off days in his final F1 season, and should have quit a little earlier, but apart from that he had a great career. He wasn't that experienced when he tried to qualify the Brabham. You can't judge a driver's ability purely based on his first races in F1. Even a certain M.Schumacher was beaten by his teammate Martin Brundle on a few occasions in his first full season in F1 in 1992.

Originally posted by tally-bally-ho
Does anyone seriously think he [Hill] or JV got to F1 on merit alone?

You must have forgotten how Jacques performed in his first two seasons in F1. What difference does it make? Does anyone seriously think Ralf Schumacher got to F1 on merit alone? Still, can anyone seriously say that TGF's brother isn't a very quick driver, well worthy of his place in F1?

[Irv the Swerve]

Originally posted by Lee Janotta
Senna punched Irvine in '93 because the Jordan rookie was driving like a complete idiot. Somehow I don't think the Swerve's a completely objective nor a credible voice on the subject of sportsmanship. It'd be a bit like a lecture on human rights from Saddam.

Just in case anyone else is confused, I am not THE actual Eddie Irvine, it's just a nickname chosen on the spur of the moment.

I was not having a Senna bash, Lee Janotta, but i don't think you can argue against the fact that he went too far sometimes, namely Suzuka 1990.

That's it.
Honestly.

[Toth]

I think in Formula 1 winning is the most important thing. F1 is a professinal sport and it is their job to win. If they don't do everything they can, for victory, they should go do something else. Ultimately, people's jobs depend on your ability to win.

That does not mean I approve of cheating. But using a loophole in the rules, or "creatively interpreting" them, is alright. Untill the governing body tells you to stop it.

Amateur sport is a completely different matter. Your main opponent is yourself, and so you can only cheat yourself.