planetf1.com

Lewis has spent nearly his entire career in good to great cars. Seb & especially Nando not such a high percentage, but nonetheless, a lot of competitive good to great cars. You basically put down the drivers who had occasional access in great cars as luck and not representative of any real skills above average... yet we hail Lewis, Seb and Nando as being among the greatest of all time for success in those same cars... Yes Massa did not win as much as Schumi did when they were paired, but he did win some... did he out drive Schumi? Of course not, few, if any, ever did. Nor did he out drive Alonso, but that is hardly a condemnation either. He did win 11 races in F1... care to tell me how many others have done much better during Massa's time in F1? (Yes, I know some have)

From what I have read in your posts on this topic and your definitions, ennis, nearly all drivers other than Nando, Seb and Lewis are mediocre at best. So much for those claiming this generation of F1 drivers are the greatest ever.

Blake wrote:Lewis has spent nearly his entire career in good to great cars. Seb & especially Nando not such a high percentage, but nonetheless, a lot of competitive good to great cars. You basically put down the drivers who had occasional access in great cars as luck and not representative of any real skills above average... yet we hail Lewis, Seb and Nando as being among the greatest of all time for success in those same cars... Yes Massa did not win as much as Schumi did when they were paired, but he did win some. Nor did he out drive Alonso, but that is hardly a condemnation. He did win 11 races in F1... care to tell me how many others have done much better during Massa's time in F1? (Yes, I know some have)

From what I have read in your posts on this topic and your definitions, ennis, nearly all drivers other than Nando, Seb and Lewis are mediocre at best. So much for those claiming this generation of F1 drivers are the greatest ever.

Those 3 are elite. You then have drivers who you could classify as top 6 over large portions of their career (Ricciardo, for example). Massa may well have snuck in to the top 6 in 1 or 2 years, but over a 15 year career he has fallen in to that mediocre range almost every year.

The fact Massa spent so long in great cars, and the only time he came close to doing anything with it seems to be against another guy who history has shown to be mediocre, is exactly why I consider him mediocre.

whatever you say. So the only way Massa could have earned you respect would have been by beating Schumi and then Alonso. MICHAEL SCHUMACHER!!! We don't even know if any of your "elite" could have done that! Personally, I don't think ANY of your "elite" would have beaten Schumi in his prime in the same car. However, if they had not we would perhaps just see them as mediocre today. However, somehow Massa was supposed to do so lest he be labeled mediocre. You do understand that Massa has teamed with perhaps some of the greatest drivers in the history of this sport...much more so than has Lewis, Seb, or Nando? He also worked his way up to that Ferrari, it wasn't a gift.

Blake wrote:whatever you say. So the only way Massa could have earned you respect would have been by beating Schumi and then Alonso. MICHAEL SCHUMACHER!!! We don't even know if any of your "elite" could have done that! Personally, I don't think ANY of your "elite" would have beaten Schumi in his prime in the same car. However, if they had not we would perhaps just see them as mediocre today. However, somehow Massa was supposed to do so lest he be labeled mediocre. You do understand that Massa has teamed with perhaps some of the greatest drivers in the history of this sport...much more so than has Lewis, Seb, or Nando? He also worked his way up to that Ferrari, it wasn't a gift.

I think you are confusing a lack of respect for a realistic appraisal.

If someone had observed my work for 15 years and concluded there were people better and people worse than me at doing my job I would not consider it a lack of respect.

Blake wrote:whatever you say. So the only way Massa could have earned you respect would have been by beating Schumi and then Alonso. MICHAEL SCHUMACHER!!! We don't even know if any of your "elite" could have done that! Personally, I don't think ANY of your "elite" would have beaten Schumi in his prime in the same car. However, if they had not we would perhaps just see them as mediocre today. However, somehow Massa was supposed to do so lest he be labeled mediocre. You do understand that Massa has teamed with perhaps some of the greatest drivers in the history of this sport...much more so than has Lewis, Seb, or Nando? He also worked his way up to that Ferrari, it wasn't a gift.

No, but I objectively can't see anything which would put him close to the elite drivers. People in the tier above him (Ricciardo, Rosberg..) would at least make them nervous at times. If he at least took the fight to people at times, and didn't also get beaten by some fairly standard drivers (who aren't Schumacher), then he might have a better case.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:Absolutely correct ALESI.

It's often difficult to remember every last little detail almost a decade on so it's good to refresh peoples' minds. What kills me is how people can argue on behalf of other lesser drivers simply because they liked them or were fans to some degree and then bash on a guy who proved he was better. Any driver who legitimately challenges for the WDC several times is not a slouch by any means. I mean Webber was convincingly outgunned and outdone by Vettel, but there were PLENTY of reasons as to why that was and regardless, that doesn't by any means make Webber just an ok driver. Like Massa, he was nothing short of excellent. And there are others who befell almost identical circumstances, yet many armchair "experts" who never turned a wheel in any type of racing machinery are quick to label them as something lesser than which is far from the truth. If they weren't good enough they'd have found themselves without a seat rather abruptly because teams need to produce the best results possible and there is no shortage of eager drivers around the world for them to trial.

Bump.

No one is saying that Massa is one of the top tier drivers of his era. However several have been pretty rough on one whom I personally consider a cut well above just average and that is the gist if my argument. Again, IF he were merely average why did he stay in F1 for 15 years? As Mercenary says, there are plenty of eager drivers to take his place. Ennis, you choose to completely disregard the quality of teammates Massa had during his prime years... and then take him to task for not putting up a better fight against Schumi and Nando. No one is saying he was as good as either them. One can still be second to Schumacher an still be a better than average driver. Indeed, I would say one would HAVE to better better than average to have teamed with Schumi and then Alonso. Ferrari does not give away seats to mediocre drivers when they have Great drivers in the other seat... it would make no sense to them. Even today,when we have a, in my opinion, a declining Kimi with Seb, I'd argue Kimi is better than average... and before Massa, Rubens was a much better than "average" driver... as was DC and Webber.

P.S. I am not convinced that Ricciardo or Rosberg or Bottas are or would have been in a "tier above" Massa in his prime... not at all. Max? Time will tell

I usually consider him top end of the good drivers without troubling the top rank for most of his races. He has had a few good ones, but if you know you are going to be told to submit to your team mate, that may account for the loss of a % of his effort.

What I have enjoyed on many occasions is the reaction of his dad in the garage, and especially the Ferrari team member butting the wall and the 'pitlane conga'.


Don't want to see him go, but don't know that I will miss him either. I do wish him good luck in what ever does next.

moby wrote:I usually consider him top end of the good drivers without troubling the top rank for most of his races. He has had a few good ones, but if you know you are going to be told to submit to your team mate, that may account for the loss of a % of his effort.

What I have enjoyed on many occasions is the reaction of his dad in the garage, and especially the Ferrari team member butting the wall and the 'pitlane conga'.


Don't want to see him go, but don't know that I will miss him either. I do wish him good luck in what ever does next.

He has had the kind of career in his chosen profession that most of us could only dream of in ours. Massa can leave with his head high knowing he has earned the respect of his peers and the F1 "family"... and more than a little money in his pockets!

Blake wrote:whatever you say. So the only way Massa could have earned you respect would have been by beating Schumi and then Alonso. MICHAEL SCHUMACHER!!! We don't even know if any of your "elite" could have done that! Personally, I don't think ANY of your "elite" would have beaten Schumi in his prime in the same car. However, if they had not we would perhaps just see them as mediocre today. However, somehow Massa was supposed to do so lest he be labeled mediocre. You do understand that Massa has teamed with perhaps some of the greatest drivers in the history of this sport...much more so than has Lewis, Seb, or Nando? He also worked his way up to that Ferrari, it wasn't a gift.

Or Heidfeld
Or Fisichella
Or Bottas
Or at least look respectable next to Alonso, like Button, Hamilton, Trulli or Vandoorne and a bit less like Grosjean or Piquet.

Yeah, right.

Blake wrote:Yeah, right.

the joke being? He was beaten by all those drivers.

In what years was Massa in the top 6 or 7 drivers? If it's less than half of his career you can't gripe about him being labelled as mediocre. I don't mind anyone having a different view but I do believe everyone's opinion should at least touch base with reality.

What's your opinion on Irvine? Fair or not to describe him as average? What about Olivier Panis?

What year did he lose to Hamilton?

Maybe you can answer a question, mikey... why has a "mediocre/average" driver had a 15 year career in F1?

What is with the Panis & Irvine question? Perhaps we should throw in Arnoux and Bandini too? This could go on forever if that is the game.

Well, Patrese had 17 seasons, Trulli and Coulthard 15 as well. Barrichello 19.

What does that tell us?

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Well, Patrese had 17 seasons, Trulli and Coulthard 15 as well. Barrichello 19.

What does that tell us?

It tells us that the drivers who are regularly at the higher end of the mediocre range, say 7-10 most times, can carve out a long F1 career.

Ennis wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Well, Patrese had 17 seasons, Trulli and Coulthard 15 as well. Barrichello 19.

What does that tell us?

It tells us that the drivers who are regularly at the higher end of the mediocre range, say 7-10 most times, can carve out a long F1 career.

I honestly don't think it's fair to call drivers who fall in the middle of the grid in terms of 'ranking' mediocre. The competitive strength of the grid isn't some linear order, starting with 1 for whichever of the big three you think is the best and ending with 20 for Stroll. It's a very tight grouping, with several drivers so close you can't split them. There's pretty strong agreement on who the top five drivers in F1 are, and that only leaves you a single place before you get to the mediocre 7-14.

Furthermore, if you're using such a rigid delineation for the grid, it requires you to assign six drivers as actively below average, which I'm not sure you'd be able to do fairly. If you try to apply that system to the current grid, you'd get something like this:

Good: Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Verstappen, Ricciardo, Perez
Mediocre: Hulk, Sainz, Ocon, Bottas, Raikkonon, Massa, Grosjean, Vandoorne
Poor: Ericsson, Wehrlein, Stroll, Gasly, Hartley, Magnussen

I think it's pretty clear that this isn't a very fair way to break down the grid. At least three of Perez, Hulk, Sainz and Ocon have to be labeled as mediocre under this system, whereas all of them are probably capable of running a top driver fairly close. Similarly, when we still had Button and Rosberg on the grid, one of them was going to have to be ranked as mediocre - but could a mediocre driver really beat Hamilton over a season, even with a little luck on their side? I don't think so.

I think we should come up with some better way to describe unspectacular drivers than 'average' or 'mediocre'. It doesn't really mean anything in isolation. Sainz and Grosjean may both be mediocre by that definition, but I certainly know which one I'd rather have to build a team around.

Instead of mediocre, I would say that Massa was a second tier driver at his best; not up there with the best, but a definite cut above the average driver who makes it to F1 when you consider the whole picture.

Ennis wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Well, Patrese had 17 seasons, Trulli and Coulthard 15 as well. Barrichello 19.

What does that tell us?

It tells us that the drivers who are regularly at the higher end of the mediocre range, say 7-10 most times, can carve out a long F1 career.

Ennis, I suspect that our differences are indeed a matter of semantics and of parameters when one says mediocre. I honestly have no problem with ranking Massa 7-10 for his career. Perhaps because I was a teacher for so many years and used a 5 tier grading system, I would see Massa in the above average level, but not the "A" grade. You, early on in this thread, acknowledged that Massa has earned his way in F1, and I appreciated it. If one only uses a three tier system (good, average, & poor), then perhaps a Massa, Webber or DC would be "average", but I don't think that adequately defines their careers, however. All I have been asking for, but perhaps not saying well, is Massa be given credit due as opposed to those who have been overly harsh on him.

Again, is it not curious that Massa appears to get considerable respect from his peers and the F1 circle... but has so many tough critics on an F1 forum?

Anyway, this has probably run its course... especially when Panis and Irvine are brought into the discussion. So I suggest we move on.

Exediron wrote:

Ennis wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Well, Patrese had 17 seasons, Trulli and Coulthard 15 as well. Barrichello 19.

What does that tell us?

It tells us that the drivers who are regularly at the higher end of the mediocre range, say 7-10 most times, can carve out a long F1 career.

I honestly don't think it's fair to call drivers who fall in the middle of the grid in terms of 'ranking' mediocre. The competitive strength of the grid isn't some linear order, starting with 1 for whichever of the big three you think is the best and ending with 20 for Stroll. It's a very tight grouping, with several drivers so close you can't split them. There's pretty strong agreement on who the top five drivers in F1 are, and that only leaves you a single place before you get to the mediocre 7-14.

Furthermore, if you're using such a rigid delineation for the grid, it requires you to assign six drivers as actively below average, which I'm not sure you'd be able to do fairly. If you try to apply that system to the current grid, you'd get something like this:

Good: Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Verstappen, Ricciardo, Perez
Mediocre: Hulk, Sainz, Ocon, Bottas, Raikkonon, Massa, Grosjean, Vandoorne
Poor: Ericsson, Wehrlein, Stroll, Gasly, Hartley, Magnussen

I think it's pretty clear that this isn't a very fair way to break down the grid. At least three of Perez, Hulk, Sainz and Ocon have to be labeled as mediocre under this system, whereas all of them are probably capable of running a top driver fairly close. Similarly, when we still had Button and Rosberg on the grid, one of them was going to have to be ranked as mediocre - but could a mediocre driver really beat Hamilton over a season, even with a little luck on their side? I don't think so.

I think we should come up with some better way to describe unspectacular drivers than 'average' or 'mediocre'. It doesn't really mean anything in isolation. Sainz and Grosjean may both be mediocre by that definition, but I certainly know which one I'd rather have to build a team around.

Instead of mediocre, I would say that Massa was a second tier driver at his best; not up there with the best, but a definite cut above the average driver who makes it to F1 when you consider the whole picture.

+1

We were thinking along the same lines as we posted apparently, Excediron.

Blake wrote:What year did he lose to Hamilton?

Maybe you can answer a question, mikey... why has a "mediocre/average" driver had a 15 year career in F1?

What is with the Panis & Irvine question? Perhaps we should throw in Arnoux and Bandini too? This could go on forever if that is the game.

With twenty seats on the grid someone is always going to have to be mediocre in that field. Someone is always going to have to be good and someone is always going to have to be poor. Good drivers come along rarely so it leaves plenty of opportunity for the mediocre to have long careers - I.E Massa and Panis. I mentioned Irvine because not only did he have a career spanning 10 seasons he also, like Massa, nearly became world champion.

I don't understand what Hamilton has to do with it.

Blake wrote:

Ennis wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Well, Patrese had 17 seasons, Trulli and Coulthard 15 as well. Barrichello 19.

What does that tell us?

It tells us that the drivers who are regularly at the higher end of the mediocre range, say 7-10 most times, can carve out a long F1 career.

Ennis, I suspect that our differences are indeed a matter of semantics and of parameters when one says mediocre. I honestly have no problem with ranking Massa 7-10 for his career. Perhaps because I was a teacher for so many years and used a 5 tier grading system, I would see Massa in the above average level, but not the "A" grade. You, early on in this thread, acknowledged that Massa has earned his way in F1, and I appreciated it. If one only uses a three tier system (good, average, & poor), then perhaps a Massa, Webber or DC would be "average", but I don't think that adequately defines their careers, however. All I have been asking for, but perhaps not saying well, is Massa be given credit due as opposed to those who have been overly harsh on him.

Again, is it not curious that Massa appears to get considerable respect from his peers and the F1 circle... but has so many tough critics on an F1 forum?

Anyway, this has probably run its course... especially when Panis and Irvine are brought into the discussion. So I suggest we move on.

While I personally would not use the term 'mediocre', I do think Massa fits well into the company of the Irvine's, Patrese's etc.

I never understood why Ferrari was so fond of him. I mean they apparently fell in love with him when he beat driver calibres like Biagi and A. Müller to the crown of the third-tier Euro F3000 season (later called AutoGP). Then, when Massa matched Räikkönen, they seemed to have been right. Well, in hindsight we know that it was rather a vastly superior car that put both Massa and Räikkönen into contention ...

Massa can be unbeatable if it is his day. But he can be awful if it is not his day - and that happens quite often. He never mananged to became consistent throughout his career. And he produced an error rate unprecedented for a long-run top team driver.

"You think" rather than "we know".

Covalent wrote:"You think" rather than "we know".

Or "the majority of available evidence indicates that"

mikeyg123 wrote:With twenty seats on the grid someone is always going to have to be mediocre in that field. Someone is always going to have to be good and someone is always going to have to be poor. Good drivers come along rarely so it leaves plenty of opportunity for the mediocre to have long careers - I.E Massa and Panis. I mentioned Irvine because not only did he have a career spanning 10 seasons he also, like Massa, nearly became world champion.

While technically true, I don't think this is a very reasonable way to look at it. As I revealed in my post by putting the current grid into those three broad categories, it really doesn't break down neatly that way, and if you're always going to call the people in the middle of the pecking order mediocre you're going to have to make some razor-edge decisions between drivers who are closely matched, and - at least right now - there are too many good drivers to fit into the good category.

Massa might technically be mediocre on today's grid - I think he is, when you get right down to it - but that doesn't mean he was a mediocre F1 driver. The mediocre F1 drivers are the ones who drive for a season or two, accomplish nothing, and get shown the door. At any given time, I think there are likely to be relatively few mediocre F1 drivers on the grid; they don't stick around very long. If you were to place Massa on a list of every driver who has ever driven in F1 (or even just in the last fifteen years) he would likely be well above the middle.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Covalent wrote:"You think" rather than "we know".

Or "the majority of available evidence indicates that"

I wouldn't say that's true either but a whole lot better.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Covalent wrote:"You think" rather than "we know".

Or "the majority of available evidence indicates that"

I don't think there is any evidence that it does. All would hinge on whether you think Raikkonen and Massa performed well in that car or not.

Honestly, given what happeend during the 2007 and 2008 seasons, I wouldn't say the Ferrari was the superior car.
2007: so much distraction in the McLaren camp, they didn't maximize the points at hand
2008: probably the worst championship in the last 10 years when it comes to driving standards from the title contenders.

mds wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Covalent wrote:"You think" rather than "we know".

Or "the majority of available evidence indicates that"

I don't think there is any evidence that it does. All would hinge on whether you think Raikkonen and Massa performed well in that car or not.

Honestly, given what happeend during the 2007 and 2008 seasons, I wouldn't say the Ferrari was the superior car.
2007: so much distraction in the McLaren camp, they didn't maximize the points at hand
2008: probably the worst championship in the last 10 years when it comes to driving standards from the title contenders.

I think it's fair to say I disagree but let's not derail an interesting thread by regenerating this tired old argument yet again

mds wrote:2007: so much distraction in the McLaren camp, they didn't maximize the points at hand

Well, McLaren did score more points...

mcdo wrote:

mds wrote:2007: so much distraction in the McLaren camp, they didn't maximize the points at hand

Well, McLaren did score more points...

Or, alternatively, they scored 0 because of the distractions in the McLaren camp...

Blake wrote:

Ennis wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Well, Patrese had 17 seasons, Trulli and Coulthard 15 as well. Barrichello 19.

What does that tell us?

It tells us that the drivers who are regularly at the higher end of the mediocre range, say 7-10 most times, can carve out a long F1 career.

Ennis, I suspect that our differences are indeed a matter of semantics and of parameters when one says mediocre. I honestly have no problem with ranking Massa 7-10 for his career. Perhaps because I was a teacher for so many years and used a 5 tier grading system, I would see Massa in the above average level, but not the "A" grade. You, early on in this thread, acknowledged that Massa has earned his way in F1, and I appreciated it. If one only uses a three tier system (good, average, & poor), then perhaps a Massa, Webber or DC would be "average", but I don't think that adequately defines their careers, however. All I have been asking for, but perhaps not saying well, is Massa be given credit due as opposed to those who have been overly harsh on him.

Again, is it not curious that Massa appears to get considerable respect from his peers and the F1 circle... but has so many tough critics on an F1 forum?

Anyway, this has probably run its course... especially when Panis and Irvine are brought into the discussion. So I suggest we move on.

Anyone who has a long F1 career, whilst spending time at top teams, is going to get respect from his peers & the F1 circle. Who retires on the back of a 15 year career and gets disrespected?

I respect him. I'd kill for his talent and opportunity. Mediocre in F1 is still an absolutely elite level in motorsport, and certainly in life in general. But this doesn't take away my opinion that is has spent that time as a largely 'middle of the pack' guy in F1 terms.

If we want to use the A, B, C, D, E, F grading system then I'll still make him a C If we want to bucket it in to 5 tiers (1-4; 5-8; 9-12; 13-16; 17-20) then I'd still say he's stuck in that lower 2nd tier, to 3rd tier.

Ennis wrote:

Blake wrote: Ennis, I suspect that our differences are indeed a matter of semantics and of parameters when one says mediocre. I honestly have no problem with ranking Massa 7-10 for his career. Perhaps because I was a teacher for so many years and used a 5 tier grading system, I would see Massa in the above average level, but not the "A" grade. You, early on in this thread, acknowledged that Massa has earned his way in F1, and I appreciated it. If one only uses a three tier system (good, average, & poor), then perhaps a Massa, Webber or DC would be "average", but I don't think that adequately defines their careers, however. All I have been asking for, but perhaps not saying well, is Massa be given credit due as opposed to those who have been overly harsh on him.

Again, is it not curious that Massa appears to get considerable respect from his peers and the F1 circle... but has so many tough critics on an F1 forum?

Anyway, this has probably run its course... especially when Panis and Irvine are brought into the discussion. So I suggest we move on.

Anyone who has a long F1 career, whilst spending time at top teams, is going to get respect from his peers & the F1 circle. Who retires on the back of a 15 year career and gets disrespected?

I respect him. I'd kill for his talent and opportunity. Mediocre in F1 is still an absolutely elite level in motorsport, and certainly in life in general. But this doesn't take away my opinion that is has spent that time as a largely 'middle of the pack' guy in F1 terms.

If we want to use the A, B, C, D, E, F grading system then I'll still make him a C If we want to bucket it in to 5 tiers (1-4; 5-8; 9-12; 13-16; 17-20) then I'd still say he's stuck in that lower 2nd tier, to 3rd tier.

Lower 2nd tier to 3rd tier of all drivers over the last 15 years (Massa's time frame)??? You seriously think that 2/3 of the drivers in that time were better than Massa?????????????

I guess this discussion is done then... no common ground for debate.
ciao

Blake wrote:

Ennis wrote:

Blake wrote: Ennis, I suspect that our differences are indeed a matter of semantics and of parameters when one says mediocre. I honestly have no problem with ranking Massa 7-10 for his career. Perhaps because I was a teacher for so many years and used a 5 tier grading system, I would see Massa in the above average level, but not the "A" grade. You, early on in this thread, acknowledged that Massa has earned his way in F1, and I appreciated it. If one only uses a three tier system (good, average, & poor), then perhaps a Massa, Webber or DC would be "average", but I don't think that adequately defines their careers, however. All I have been asking for, but perhaps not saying well, is Massa be given credit due as opposed to those who have been overly harsh on him.

Again, is it not curious that Massa appears to get considerable respect from his peers and the F1 circle... but has so many tough critics on an F1 forum?

Anyway, this has probably run its course... especially when Panis and Irvine are brought into the discussion. So I suggest we move on.

Anyone who has a long F1 career, whilst spending time at top teams, is going to get respect from his peers & the F1 circle. Who retires on the back of a 15 year career and gets disrespected?

I respect him. I'd kill for his talent and opportunity. Mediocre in F1 is still an absolutely elite level in motorsport, and certainly in life in general. But this doesn't take away my opinion that is has spent that time as a largely 'middle of the pack' guy in F1 terms.

If we want to use the A, B, C, D, E, F grading system then I'll still make him a C If we want to bucket it in to 5 tiers (1-4; 5-8; 9-12; 13-16; 17-20) then I'd still say he's stuck in that lower 2nd tier, to 3rd tier.

Lower 2nd tier to 3rd tier of all drivers over the last 15 years (Massa's time frame)??? You seriously think that 2/3 of the drivers in that time were better than Massa?????????????

I guess this discussion is done then... no common ground for debate.
ciao

You clearly haven't read what I said.

Blake wrote:

Ennis wrote:

Blake wrote: Ennis, I suspect that our differences are indeed a matter of semantics and of parameters when one says mediocre. I honestly have no problem with ranking Massa 7-10 for his career. Perhaps because I was a teacher for so many years and used a 5 tier grading system, I would see Massa in the above average level, but not the "A" grade. You, early on in this thread, acknowledged that Massa has earned his way in F1, and I appreciated it. If one only uses a three tier system (good, average, & poor), then perhaps a Massa, Webber or DC would be "average", but I don't think that adequately defines their careers, however. All I have been asking for, but perhaps not saying well, is Massa be given credit due as opposed to those who have been overly harsh on him.

Again, is it not curious that Massa appears to get considerable respect from his peers and the F1 circle... but has so many tough critics on an F1 forum?

Anyway, this has probably run its course... especially when Panis and Irvine are brought into the discussion. So I suggest we move on.

Anyone who has a long F1 career, whilst spending time at top teams, is going to get respect from his peers & the F1 circle. Who retires on the back of a 15 year career and gets disrespected?

I respect him. I'd kill for his talent and opportunity. Mediocre in F1 is still an absolutely elite level in motorsport, and certainly in life in general. But this doesn't take away my opinion that is has spent that time as a largely 'middle of the pack' guy in F1 terms.

If we want to use the A, B, C, D, E, F grading system then I'll still make him a C If we want to bucket it in to 5 tiers (1-4; 5-8; 9-12; 13-16; 17-20) then I'd still say he's stuck in that lower 2nd tier, to 3rd tier.

Lower 2nd tier to 3rd tier of all drivers over the last 15 years (Massa's time frame)??? You seriously think that 2/3 of the drivers in that time were better than Massa?????????????

I guess this discussion is done then... no common ground for debate.
ciao

Or perhaps you could try looking at it from the angle Ennis Is? He pretty clearly means year on year rather than as a whole. Massa has had a very good career but spent the vast majority of it being average.

I don't get what's so inaccurate or disrespectful about that.

Blake wrote:whatever you say. So the only way Massa could have earned you respect would have been by beating Schumi and then Alonso. MICHAEL SCHUMACHER!!! We don't even know if any of your "elite" could have done that! Personally, I don't think ANY of your "elite" would have beaten Schumi in his prime in the same car. However, if they had not we would perhaps just see them as mediocre today. However, somehow Massa was supposed to do so lest he be labeled mediocre. You do understand that Massa has teamed with perhaps some of the greatest drivers in the history of this sport...much more so than has Lewis, Seb, or Nando? He also worked his way up to that Ferrari, it wasn't a gift.

Getting beat by great drivers doesn't make you more than mediocre, Massa also got beat by Bottas who has taken some stick this season because he got beat by Hamilton.

Blake wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:Absolutely correct ALESI.

It's often difficult to remember every last little detail almost a decade on so it's good to refresh peoples' minds. What kills me is how people can argue on behalf of other lesser drivers simply because they liked them or were fans to some degree and then bash on a guy who proved he was better. Any driver who legitimately challenges for the WDC several times is not a slouch by any means. I mean Webber was convincingly outgunned and outdone by Vettel, but there were PLENTY of reasons as to why that was and regardless, that doesn't by any means make Webber just an ok driver. Like Massa, he was nothing short of excellent. And there are others who befell almost identical circumstances, yet many armchair "experts" who never turned a wheel in any type of racing machinery are quick to label them as something lesser than which is far from the truth. If they weren't good enough they'd have found themselves without a seat rather abruptly because teams need to produce the best results possible and there is no shortage of eager drivers around the world for them to trial.

Bump.

No one is saying that Massa is one of the top tier drivers of his era. However several have been pretty rough on one whom I personally consider a cut well above just average and that is the gist if my argument. Again, IF he were merely average why did he stay in F1 for 15 years? As Mercenary says, there are plenty of eager drivers to take his place. Ennis, you choose to completely disregard the quality of teammates Massa had during his prime years... and then take him to task for not putting up a better fight against Schumi and Nando. No one is saying he was as good as either them. One can still be second to Schumacher an still be a better than average driver. Indeed, I would say one would HAVE to better better than average to have teamed with Schumi and then Alonso. Ferrari does not give away seats to mediocre drivers when they have Great drivers in the other seat... it would make no sense to them. Even today,when we have a, in my opinion, a declining Kimi with Seb, I'd argue Kimi is better than average... and before Massa, Rubens was a much better than "average" driver... as was DC and Webber.

P.S. I am not convinced that Ricciardo or Rosberg or Bottas are or would have been in a "tier above" Massa in his prime... not at all. Max? Time will tell

I'm curious to what this prime age is, some seem to go over it was soon as they turn 30?

mikeyg123 wrote:

Blake wrote:What year did he lose to Hamilton?

Maybe you can answer a question, mikey... why has a "mediocre/average" driver had a 15 year career in F1?

What is with the Panis & Irvine question? Perhaps we should throw in Arnoux and Bandini too? This could go on forever if that is the game.

With twenty seats on the grid someone is always going to have to be mediocre in that field. Someone is always going to have to be good and someone is always going to have to be poor. Good drivers come along rarely so it leaves plenty of opportunity for the mediocre to have long careers - I.E Massa and Panis. I mentioned Irvine because not only did he have a career spanning 10 seasons he also, like Massa, nearly became world champion.

I don't understand what Hamilton has to do with it.

Indeed in a grid of 20 drivers if you are the 10th best then you can be labelled as average which would be another term for mediocre.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Blake wrote:

Ennis wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Well, Patrese had 17 seasons, Trulli and Coulthard 15 as well. Barrichello 19.

What does that tell us?

It tells us that the drivers who are regularly at the higher end of the mediocre range, say 7-10 most times, can carve out a long F1 career.

Ennis, I suspect that our differences are indeed a matter of semantics and of parameters when one says mediocre. I honestly have no problem with ranking Massa 7-10 for his career. Perhaps because I was a teacher for so many years and used a 5 tier grading system, I would see Massa in the above average level, but not the "A" grade. You, early on in this thread, acknowledged that Massa has earned his way in F1, and I appreciated it. If one only uses a three tier system (good, average, & poor), then perhaps a Massa, Webber or DC would be "average", but I don't think that adequately defines their careers, however. All I have been asking for, but perhaps not saying well, is Massa be given credit due as opposed to those who have been overly harsh on him.

Again, is it not curious that Massa appears to get considerable respect from his peers and the F1 circle... but has so many tough critics on an F1 forum?

Anyway, this has probably run its course... especially when Panis and Irvine are brought into the discussion. So I suggest we move on.

While I personally would not use the term 'mediocre', I do think Massa fits well into the company of the Irvine's, Patrese's etc.

I never understood why Ferrari was so fond of him. I mean they apparently fell in love with him when he beat driver calibres like Biagi and A. Müller to the crown of the third-tier Euro F3000 season (later called AutoGP). Then, when Massa matched Räikkönen, they seemed to have been right. Well, in hindsight we know that it was rather a vastly superior car that put both Massa and Räikkönen into contention ...

Massa can be unbeatable if it is his day. But he can be awful if it is not his day - and that happens quite often. He never mananged to became consistent throughout his career. And he produced an error rate unprecedented for a long-run top team driver.

Yeah I found that quite strange as well, Massa never went up against the elite junior drivers in the main F3000 series yet Ferrari saw to back him.

mds wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Covalent wrote:"You think" rather than "we know".

Or "the majority of available evidence indicates that"

I don't think there is any evidence that it does. All would hinge on whether you think Raikkonen and Massa performed well in that car or not.

Honestly, given what happeend during the 2007 and 2008 seasons, I wouldn't say the Ferrari was the superior car.
2007: so much distraction in the McLaren camp, they didn't maximize the points at hand
2008: probably the worst championship in the last 10 years when it comes to driving standards from the title contenders.

I don't think the points scored has much to do with it, you only have to look at the relative performance of the cars.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Blake wrote:

Ennis wrote:

Blake wrote: Ennis, I suspect that our differences are indeed a matter of semantics and of parameters when one says mediocre. I honestly have no problem with ranking Massa 7-10 for his career. Perhaps because I was a teacher for so many years and used a 5 tier grading system, I would see Massa in the above average level, but not the "A" grade. You, early on in this thread, acknowledged that Massa has earned his way in F1, and I appreciated it. If one only uses a three tier system (good, average, & poor), then perhaps a Massa, Webber or DC would be "average", but I don't think that adequately defines their careers, however. All I have been asking for, but perhaps not saying well, is Massa be given credit due as opposed to those who have been overly harsh on him.

Again, is it not curious that Massa appears to get considerable respect from his peers and the F1 circle... but has so many tough critics on an F1 forum?

Anyway, this has probably run its course... especially when Panis and Irvine are brought into the discussion. So I suggest we move on.

Anyone who has a long F1 career, whilst spending time at top teams, is going to get respect from his peers & the F1 circle. Who retires on the back of a 15 year career and gets disrespected?

I respect him. I'd kill for his talent and opportunity. Mediocre in F1 is still an absolutely elite level in motorsport, and certainly in life in general. But this doesn't take away my opinion that is has spent that time as a largely 'middle of the pack' guy in F1 terms.

If we want to use the A, B, C, D, E, F grading system then I'll still make him a C If we want to bucket it in to 5 tiers (1-4; 5-8; 9-12; 13-16; 17-20) then I'd still say he's stuck in that lower 2nd tier, to 3rd tier.

Lower 2nd tier to 3rd tier of all drivers over the last 15 years (Massa's time frame)??? You seriously think that 2/3 of the drivers in that time were better than Massa?????????????

I guess this discussion is done then... no common ground for debate.
ciao

Or perhaps you could try looking at it from the angle Ennis Is? He pretty clearly means year on year rather than as a whole. Massa has had a very good career but spent the vast majority of it being average.

I don't get what's so inaccurate or disrespectful about that.

Yep he spent 5 years alongside Schumacher/Alonso, the other 10 years he got beat 7 times, what is outstanding about that?

Funny thing is, personally, I became a fan of Massa's before he even went to Ferrari as a test driver. I saw something in his days with Heidfield that made me think there was potential there, and was openly glad when Ferrari signed him... of course, I was in the minority then too. While some here may not think much Massa's career, I do. So be it. Fortunately, Filipe can retire secure in the knowledge that his peers and most of the the F1 family appreciate him and his career. He can retire tied for 27th all-time in F1 wins and 6th in races/starts with an estimated net worth of over 30 million. Have a great retirement ", Filipe... may it be as "average" as your career. Oh... and thanks!


On that note... have at it critics.

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Covalent wrote:"You think" rather than "we know".

Or "the majority of available evidence indicates that"

I don't think there is any evidence that it does. All would hinge on whether you think Raikkonen and Massa performed well in that car or not.

Honestly, given what happeend during the 2007 and 2008 seasons, I wouldn't say the Ferrari was the superior car.
2007: so much distraction in the McLaren camp, they didn't maximize the points at hand
2008: probably the worst championship in the last 10 years when it comes to driving standards from the title contenders.

I don't think the points scored has much to do with it, you only have to look at the relative performance of the cars.

But since there's no separating car and driver, it's all very much guessing based on how good you think the drivers were.

And what I'm saying is that in 2007 both of the McLaren drivers were not at their best, and in 2008 both of the title contenders weren't. You can't simply say "oh, but Massa has been proven to be an inferior driver over the years so if he went to the final corner against Hamilton back then that must mean the Ferrari was better". And you can't say that because Hamilton that year wasn't that great either.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Blake wrote:What year did he lose to Hamilton?

Maybe you can answer a question, mikey... why has a "mediocre/average" driver had a 15 year career in F1?

What is with the Panis & Irvine question? Perhaps we should throw in Arnoux and Bandini too? This could go on forever if that is the game.

With twenty seats on the grid someone is always going to have to be mediocre in that field. Someone is always going to have to be good and someone is always going to have to be poor. Good drivers come along rarely so it leaves plenty of opportunity for the mediocre to have long careers - I.E Massa and Panis. I mentioned Irvine because not only did he have a career spanning 10 seasons he also, like Massa, nearly became world champion.

I don't understand what Hamilton has to do with it.

Indeed in a grid of 20 drivers if you are the 10th best then you can be labelled as average which would be another term for mediocre.

And 10th best in F1 is still like, I dunno, 20th best in the world. Not bad really!