planetf1.com

Lotus49 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:
So again, I'll ask: what is the 'best' if it's not the most successful? We all have our favourites, that's a personal opinion. But is there some objective criteria by which we can judge the 'best'? Of course I agree it's not possible to compare drivers from different eras with complete accuracy, but can we at least get a fair idea?

In other sports it is usually agreed to be the number of titles - majors in golf, grand slams in tennis, gold medals/world records in athletics.

That's because those Sports are generally fought on a level playing field equipment wise. Non spec Sports series like F1 never does so its more subjective like asking who's the best footballer. Stats will be part of the discussion of course but ultimately Giggs was going to struggle to win as many World Cups as Pele could for reasons that are pretty clear so using them to show how much better Pele was would be pretty shaky ground so we wouldn't I don't think.

Also if Fed had to use a badminton racket and Tiger a baseball bat when playing the past ten years and Nadal and Mickelson could use their proper equipment we wouldn't be clamouring to use majors/grand slams either in any comparison for obvious reasons.

There just isn't any strictly objective criteria in a non-spec Sport such as F1 so I think you're looking for something that just doesn't exist there tbh.

I'd say F1 drivers are more comparable than footballers: Giggs could never get to play for Brazil, but any F1 driver can get into the best team.. And my contention is that the best drivers always get into the best teams - if not, what are the team principals doing?? So we can compare Senna's results with Mclaren against Hamilton's with Mercedes or Schumacher's with Ferrari. Of course some of the top drivers spend more of their careers in 2nd rate teams than others. Hamilton has been lucky in that respect relative to say Senna. And some have their careers shortened by injury or worse. I'm not saying my system is perfect, but I will suggest it's better than any alternative..

kleefton wrote:Poker,

Verstappen got 2 laps in though, while Gasly only did one. Actually Gasly’s first flyer was faster than his teammate’s. I don’t like to compare q1 times for the top guys because they are sometimes in “cruise control” mode in the early sessions. Proof is that most of the midfield guys barely improved in q2, actually some got worse while Verstappen found a second in q2. We don’t know what Gasly would have done in the later sessions.

Fair enough so you basically voided the Australian qualifying?

tim3003 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
Both have happened often but you would never agree as you think best = most successful. So if they have not been in cars to achieve results you are never going to think they are the best driver.

Conversely no matter how average a driver is if he has been in the best car and achieved results you are never going to believe he was average because you think his success "proves" how good he was.

Can you not see how circular your logic is?



But surely what you write above proves my point to a degree, Massa and Coulthard both spent longer in top cars than many better drivers.

I think there are plenty of champions who are not as good as many who were never able to win the championship.

Hawthorn
Phil Hill
Hulme
Hunt
Scheckter
Damon Hill
Villeneuve

All won championships when there are better drivers who haven't. But you won't believe the likes of Gurney,Peterson, Reutemann, Barrichello etc were better drivers because they didn't win a championship. Your model is a self fulfilling prophecy.

And why didn't they win championships? Reutemann had the chance in 81 but blew it. His nerve was suspect.
Barrichello never beat a 1st rate team-mate - ie Schumacher or Button.
Peterson never got into the right team at the right time. And when he did with Lotus in 78 he had to settle for no 2 status. So Colin Chapman made the decision that Andretti was his best bet for the championship.
(Don't know enough of Gurney's history to comment).

As I've said, being a great driver is not only about being fast. It's about convincing team bosses you can win titles and then demonstrating it. Surely your 3 examples never did that. You could say Gilles Villeneuve was amazingly fast as many did, but he didn't have the self-control to handle Pironi's more ruthless tactical approach and that in part led to his crashing fatally.

I don't think circular logic is the right term, but there is a self-fulfilling prophecy part to it; ie if you show promise you get noticed by the big teams. If you get a chance and take it, team bosses give you more chances and if you keep taking them you stay in the best seats. If you never quite convince the team boss to give you the chance, or if you don't quickly take it when it comes, you may not get another. Maybe some drivers don't have the self-belief or determinaton to do what is needed to get the top no 1 drives despite their speed. I think Peterson was like that - he just loved driving, whereas Andretti was prepared to do whatever it took to win the title.

I disagree fundamentally that being able to get into a more competitive team makes you a better driver. I would only factor in things that are actually relevant to driving. And you're not just ranking the great's. I agree that the true greats do transcend enough to get a shot in quality equipment but you are also ranking the very good and they don't always.

Honestly, If you truly believe the best is the most successful then you really don't need to come up with a system for that. Just count the WDC's. That is the ultimate guide to success after all.

IMO any system that makes Felipe Massa arbitrarily a worse driver because Hamilton passes Glock on the last corner of the last race of a championship is not one I can have faith in.

I think one thing I said wasn't clear: when I said the best drivers always get the best cars, I didn't mean only the best drivers get those cars. Of course there are the no 2's as well, like Coulthard, Massa, Webber who as we discussed are not greats. I am not ranking these drivers, only those who've won a title or come close enough more than once to have proved they could genuinely compete for titles. That's why I included 2nd places in championships. Luck of course plays a part, as it did in 2008 for Massa. But if he was a top driver, he'd have manouevred his way into other opportunities over his career. He didn't.

I didn't say getting into the best car makes you a better driver - but that it gives you the opportunity to prove you are the best driver. Some take that opportunity, some don't.

The WDC stats do tell most of the story in my view, but the case of Moss needs to be accounted for. He was clearly a top driver as he proved with 4 title 2nd places, but luck never came his way.

Why don't you look more closely at luck in Massa's career? You mark him out as a number 2. He was indeed demoted to number 2 from the moment Alonso was brought into the team, but he wasn't a number 2 for 2.5 seasons; 2007-2009. We don't know how he might have developed, as some drivers do, had he won the title that really should have been his in 2008, and we know what happened to him in 2009.
It wasn't his fault that the 2009 car wasn't up to scratch, and it is noteworthy in the frame of discussing whether the best drivers get into the best cars, that neither was his 2008 rival - their teams had their hands full developing the car they were fighting for the title in, rather than developing the car for the new rules for 2009.

Drivers don't develop cars, so even the very best are reliant on the teams to put a good one under their bums.

Edit:

tim3003 wrote:You could say Gilles Villeneuve was amazingly fast as many did, but he didn't have the self-control to handle Pironi's more ruthless tactical approach and that in part led to his crashing fatally.

It may be fashionable to attribute his accident in part to his quarrel with Pironi, but saying he didn't have self-control is nothing more than a wild guess. What happened at Zolder was nothing more than a driver on a slow down lap getting in the way of one on a hot lap.

tim3003 wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:
So again, I'll ask: what is the 'best' if it's not the most successful? We all have our favourites, that's a personal opinion. But is there some objective criteria by which we can judge the 'best'? Of course I agree it's not possible to compare drivers from different eras with complete accuracy, but can we at least get a fair idea?

In other sports it is usually agreed to be the number of titles - majors in golf, grand slams in tennis, gold medals/world records in athletics.

That's because those Sports are generally fought on a level playing field equipment wise. Non spec Sports series like F1 never does so its more subjective like asking who's the best footballer. Stats will be part of the discussion of course but ultimately Giggs was going to struggle to win as many World Cups as Pele could for reasons that are pretty clear so using them to show how much better Pele was would be pretty shaky ground so we wouldn't I don't think.

Also if Fed had to use a badminton racket and Tiger a baseball bat when playing the past ten years and Nadal and Mickelson could use their proper equipment we wouldn't be clamouring to use majors/grand slams either in any comparison for obvious reasons.

There just isn't any strictly objective criteria in a non-spec Sport such as F1 so I think you're looking for something that just doesn't exist there tbh.

I'd say F1 drivers are more comparable than footballers: Giggs could never get to play for Brazil, but any F1 driver can get into the best team.. And my contention is that the best drivers always get into the best teams - if not, what are the team principals doing?? So we can compare Senna's results with Mclaren against Hamilton's with Mercedes or Schumacher's with Ferrari. Of course some of the top drivers spend more of their careers in 2nd rate teams than others. Hamilton has been lucky in that respect relative to say Senna. And some have their careers shortened by injury or worse. I'm not saying my system is perfect, but I will suggest it's better than any alternative..

They can't all get into the best teams for various reasons but even if they can get into the best teams, or at least big spending teams, that's still not guaranteeing the fastest car for the driver to rack up stats with. Alonso had Works support for all but 2 of his 17 seasons but had the fastest car once or twice at a push in 2006/7 and that was for half a year in 2006 before the damper was removed.

The reliance on what those teams do with the money and facilities that a top team has is what makes it difficult to look at just results for the driver alone. I don't think there's anything wrong with your system, it shows the most successful drivers well but its the separation of driver and car that's impossible to do in this Sport so I don't think there is an alternative system out there, it will just always be a subjective thing rather than an objective one in a non spec series when discussing who's the best driver with the stats making up an important part of that debate though and arguably the single biggest part.

Fiki wrote:

tim3003 wrote:
I think one thing I said wasn't clear: when I said the best drivers always get the best cars, I didn't mean only the best drivers get those cars. Of course there are the no 2's as well, like Coulthard, Massa, Webber who as we discussed are not greats. I am not ranking these drivers, only those who've won a title or come close enough more than once to have proved they could genuinely compete for titles. That's why I included 2nd places in championships. Luck of course plays a part, as it did in 2008 for Massa. But if he was a top driver, he'd have manouevred his way into other opportunities over his career. He didn't.

I didn't say getting into the best car makes you a better driver - but that it gives you the opportunity to prove you are the best driver. Some take that opportunity, some don't.

Why don't you look more closely at luck in Massa's career? You mark him out as a number 2. He was indeed demoted to number 2 from the moment Alonso was brought into the team, but he wasn't a number 2 for 2.5 seasons; 2007-2009. We don't know how he might have developed, as some drivers do, had he won the title that really should have been his in 2008, and we know what happened to him in 2009.
It wasn't his fault that the 2009 car wasn't up to scratch, and it is noteworthy in the frame of discussing whether the best drivers get into the best cars, that neither was his 2008 rival - their teams had their hands full developing the car they were fighting for the title in, rather than developing the car for the new rules for 2009.

Drivers don't develop cars, so even the very best are reliant on the teams to put a good one under their bums.

You have a point re Massa's accident, which I think took him 2 years to recover from. But I'm not convinced that even had he won the 2008 WDC he'd have become stronger. I remember the relationship he had with Rob Smedley over many years, which worked because Smedley was able to motivate him to produce his best. Motivate him?? Does Hamilton or Verstappen need to be motivated? I think you're either born with the ferocious desire to win above all else, or not. Massa wasn't. Would Hamilton have accepted being Alonso's no 2 at Ferrari having come within an inch of winning the title? I don't think so.

It was the same difference between Hamilton and Rosberg. You might be surprised given Hamilton's records to know that the quali score between them was 31-29 to Hamilton. So Rosberg didn't lack speed. I'm sure he wanted to win, but unlike Hamilton he didn't need to win. Rosberg always seemed to me aware that F1 was not everything, too much of a gentleman, whereas Hamilton was a ruthless professional who'd push the rules to the limit. When Rosberg tried to emulate this approach it looked clumsy - see A1-Ring or Nurburgring 2016 where he tried to push Ham and Vettel wide. Hamilton would have pulled such moves more confidently and got away with them - as he did at Bahrain I think.

To be a great driver speed is not enough. You need the temperament, the desire, the focus and the total self-belief that in my opinion Massa lacked. Massa is now in Formula E, competing against those half his age. So he loves driving, great. But if he had the ego needed to be a champion like Alonso, he'd be interested only in world-level titles, not just in taking part.

tim3003 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

tim3003 wrote:
I think one thing I said wasn't clear: when I said the best drivers always get the best cars, I didn't mean only the best drivers get those cars. Of course there are the no 2's as well, like Coulthard, Massa, Webber who as we discussed are not greats. I am not ranking these drivers, only those who've won a title or come close enough more than once to have proved they could genuinely compete for titles. That's why I included 2nd places in championships. Luck of course plays a part, as it did in 2008 for Massa. But if he was a top driver, he'd have manouevred his way into other opportunities over his career. He didn't.

I didn't say getting into the best car makes you a better driver - but that it gives you the opportunity to prove you are the best driver. Some take that opportunity, some don't.

Why don't you look more closely at luck in Massa's career? You mark him out as a number 2. He was indeed demoted to number 2 from the moment Alonso was brought into the team, but he wasn't a number 2 for 2.5 seasons; 2007-2009. We don't know how he might have developed, as some drivers do, had he won the title that really should have been his in 2008, and we know what happened to him in 2009.
It wasn't his fault that the 2009 car wasn't up to scratch, and it is noteworthy in the frame of discussing whether the best drivers get into the best cars, that neither was his 2008 rival - their teams had their hands full developing the car they were fighting for the title in, rather than developing the car for the new rules for 2009.

Drivers don't develop cars, so even the very best are reliant on the teams to put a good one under their bums.

You have a point re Massa's accident, which I think took him 2 years to recover from. But I'm not convinced that even had he won the 2008 WDC he'd have become stronger. I remember the relationship he had with Rob Smedley over many years, which worked because Smedley was able to motivate him to produce his best. Motivate him?? Does Hamilton or Verstappen need to be motivated? I think you're either born with the ferocious desire to win above all else, or not. Massa wasn't. Would Hamilton have accepted being Alonso's no 2 at Ferrari having come within an inch of winning the title? I don't think so.

It was the same difference between Hamilton and Rosberg. You might be surprised given Hamilton's records to know that the quali score between them was 31-29 to Hamilton. So Rosberg didn't lack speed. I'm sure he wanted to win, but unlike Hamilton he didn't need to win. Rosberg always seemed to me aware that F1 was not everything, too much of a gentleman, whereas Hamilton was a ruthless professional who'd push the rules to the limit. When Rosberg tried to emulate this approach it looked clumsy - see A1-Ring or Nurburgring 2016 where he tried to push Ham and Vettel wide. Hamilton would have pulled such moves more confidently and got away with them - as he did at Bahrain I think.

To be a great driver speed is not enough. You need the temperament, the desire, the focus and the total self-belief that in my opinion Massa lacked. Massa is now in Formula E, competing against those half his age. So he loves driving, great. But if he had the ego needed to be a champion like Alonso, he'd be interested only in world-level titles, not just in taking part.

I just want to touch on those quali scores.

Overall, i think it was 42-36 Hamilton.

Looking at some of the sessions more closely:

Hungary 2014-Hamilton’s car catches fire. Couldn’t take part in qualifying
Germany 2014- Hamilton suffers brake failure in Q1, couldn’t take part in Q3 - consigned to start P15 on the grid
Monaco 2014-Rosberg brings out the yellow flags (locked up, went down the escape). This interrupted Hamilton’s lap (Hamilton had just clocked the fastest first sector before he had to back off).
Japan 2015-Kvyat crash brings out red flags. Hamilton was actually a tenth and a half up, by Turn Seven, but his progress halted by the red flag.
USA 2015-Rain cancelled Q3, so they used the times from Q2 instead.
China 2016--Hamilton didn't take part in qualifying due to mechanical issues/gearbox change
Russia 2016-Hamilton didn't take part in qualifying due to engine issues
Hungary 2016- On his final lap, Hamilton had gone quickest in the first sector but was forced to back off when Alonso in the McLaren spun off. Double yellows came out. Hamilton had to lift. His lap gone.
Belgium 2016-Hamilton didn't take part in quali due to engine penalties.
Singapore 2016-Due to mechanical issues, Hamilton misses crucial running in FP2 & FP3 and goes into qualifying completely blind having done no proper laps in night time conditions.
Monaco 2016 – Hamilton had engine issues at the start of Q3. This restricted him to only one ill-prepared flying lap.

I would agree Rosberg was quick, but the 42-36 stat is somewhat misleading.

tim3003 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

tim3003 wrote:
I think one thing I said wasn't clear: when I said the best drivers always get the best cars, I didn't mean only the best drivers get those cars. Of course there are the no 2's as well, like Coulthard, Massa, Webber who as we discussed are not greats. I am not ranking these drivers, only those who've won a title or come close enough more than once to have proved they could genuinely compete for titles. That's why I included 2nd places in championships. Luck of course plays a part, as it did in 2008 for Massa. But if he was a top driver, he'd have manouevred his way into other opportunities over his career. He didn't.

I didn't say getting into the best car makes you a better driver - but that it gives you the opportunity to prove you are the best driver. Some take that opportunity, some don't.

Why don't you look more closely at luck in Massa's career? You mark him out as a number 2. He was indeed demoted to number 2 from the moment Alonso was brought into the team, but he wasn't a number 2 for 2.5 seasons; 2007-2009. We don't know how he might have developed, as some drivers do, had he won the title that really should have been his in 2008, and we know what happened to him in 2009.
It wasn't his fault that the 2009 car wasn't up to scratch, and it is noteworthy in the frame of discussing whether the best drivers get into the best cars, that neither was his 2008 rival - their teams had their hands full developing the car they were fighting for the title in, rather than developing the car for the new rules for 2009.

Drivers don't develop cars, so even the very best are reliant on the teams to put a good one under their bums.

You have a point re Massa's accident, which I think took him 2 years to recover from. But I'm not convinced that even had he won the 2008 WDC he'd have become stronger. I remember the relationship he had with Rob Smedley over many years, which worked because Smedley was able to motivate him to produce his best. Motivate him?? Does Hamilton or Verstappen need to be motivated? I think you're either born with the ferocious desire to win above all else, or not. Massa wasn't. Would Hamilton have accepted being Alonso's no 2 at Ferrari having come within an inch of winning the title? I don't think so.

My point was that you marked Massa out as a number 2, which he wasn't in the year he should have become champion. Here you're doing it again and on false grounds. The reason why he was number 2 was because that's what his team made him; from Monaco 2008 he knew that he was staying at the team but that attention would be going to Alonso. I have to say I would have found it interesting to see how they would have solved the problem of not wanting to put a world champion alongside Alonso, but that unfortunately remained a moot question.
I don't know where you got the idea from, that Massa didn't have the desire to win.

Fiki wrote:

tim3003 wrote: You have a point re Massa's accident, which I think took him 2 years to recover from. But I'm not convinced that even had he won the 2008 WDC he'd have become stronger. I remember the relationship he had with Rob Smedley over many years, which worked because Smedley was able to motivate him to produce his best. Motivate him?? Does Hamilton or Verstappen need to be motivated? I think you're either born with the ferocious desire to win above all else, or not. Massa wasn't. Would Hamilton have accepted being Alonso's no 2 at Ferrari having come within an inch of winning the title? I don't think so.

My point was that you marked Massa out as a number 2, which he wasn't in the year he should have become champion. Here you're doing it again and on false grounds. The reason why he was number 2 was because that's what his team made him; from Monaco 2008 he knew that he was staying at the team but that attention would be going to Alonso. I have to say I would have found it interesting to see how they would have solved the problem of not wanting to put a world champion alongside Alonso, but that unfortunately remained a moot question.
I don't know where you got the idea from, that Massa didn't have the desire to win.

You don't seem to be listening to what I'm saying. Yes his team made him no 2, but the likes of Hamilton would not have stood for that. He was content to be no 2 to Alonso for 5 years!
Yes he had the desire to win, like Rosberg, but that isn't enough.

The problem with most of the defences put up for particular drivers by those who think are being hard-done-by is that they have a soft-spot for the driver, so their views are tinged with emotion. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you realise it. But this exercise requires stripping emotion out of the picture..

aice wrote:
I just want to touch on those quali scores.

Overall, i think it was 42-36 Hamilton.

Looking at some of the sessions more closely:

Hungary 2014-Hamilton’s car catches fire. Couldn’t take part in qualifying
Germany 2014- Hamilton suffers brake failure in Q1, couldn’t take part in Q3 - consigned to start P15 on the grid
Monaco 2014-Rosberg brings out the yellow flags (locked up, went down the escape). This interrupted Hamilton’s lap (Hamilton had just clocked the fastest first sector before he had to back off).
Japan 2015-Kvyat crash brings out red flags. Hamilton was actually a tenth and a half up, by Turn Seven, but his progress halted by the red flag.
USA 2015-Rain cancelled Q3, so they used the times from Q2 instead.
China 2016--Hamilton didn't take part in qualifying due to mechanical issues/gearbox change
Russia 2016-Hamilton didn't take part in qualifying due to engine issues
Hungary 2016- On his final lap, Hamilton had gone quickest in the first sector but was forced to back off when Alonso in the McLaren spun off. Double yellows came out. Hamilton had to lift. His lap gone.
Belgium 2016-Hamilton didn't take part in quali due to engine penalties.
Singapore 2016-Due to mechanical issues, Hamilton misses crucial running in FP2 & FP3 and goes into qualifying completely blind having done no proper laps in night time conditions.
Monaco 2016 – Hamilton had engine issues at the start of Q3. This restricted him to only one ill-prepared flying lap.

I would agree Rosberg was quick, but the 42-36 stat is somewhat misleading.

Sorry about that. I think the 31-29 figure may have been for 2014-2016 only. You chart all Hamilton's issues. did Rosberg not have any?

tim3003 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

tim3003 wrote: You have a point re Massa's accident, which I think took him 2 years to recover from. But I'm not convinced that even had he won the 2008 WDC he'd have become stronger. I remember the relationship he had with Rob Smedley over many years, which worked because Smedley was able to motivate him to produce his best. Motivate him?? Does Hamilton or Verstappen need to be motivated? I think you're either born with the ferocious desire to win above all else, or not. Massa wasn't. Would Hamilton have accepted being Alonso's no 2 at Ferrari having come within an inch of winning the title? I don't think so.

My point was that you marked Massa out as a number 2, which he wasn't in the year he should have become champion. Here you're doing it again and on false grounds. The reason why he was number 2 was because that's what his team made him; from Monaco 2008 he knew that he was staying at the team but that attention would be going to Alonso. I have to say I would have found it interesting to see how they would have solved the problem of not wanting to put a world champion alongside Alonso, but that unfortunately remained a moot question.
I don't know where you got the idea from, that Massa didn't have the desire to win.

You don't seem to be listening to what I'm saying. Yes his team made him no 2, but the likes of Hamilton would not have stood for that. He was content to be no 2 to Alonso for 5 years!
Yes he had the desire to win, like Rosberg, but that isn't enough.

The problem with most of the defences put up for particular drivers by those who think are being hard-done-by is that they have a soft-spot for the driver, so their views are tinged with emotion. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you realise it. But this exercise requires stripping emotion out of the picture..

I am listening, I just don't understand your reasoning, or don't agree with it.
It is immaterial whether Hamilton would not stand being made a number 2 in his team. The problem is not just speaking up for yourself, it is what you hope the outcome of your protest will be. I would suggest that Massa did what he was given the chance to do, in the time available before he would be demoted to a number 2 role: try to win the championship while their car was up to it. We have no indication as to whether he might have developed further as a driver, once he would have been a world champion, he might and he might not. As for Smedley's way of talking to him on the radio; that is no indication of Massa's mentality as a sportsman.

Where do you think Massa would have been able to go, "not standing for it" in 2010-2013? Like having the desire to win, it isn't enough just not standing for it. But even then; what makes you think he was content having to be a number 2?

tim3003 wrote:
You don't seem to be listening to what I'm saying. Yes his team made him no 2, but the likes of Hamilton would not have stood for that. He was content to be no 2 to Alonso for 5 years!
Yes he had the desire to win, like Rosberg, but that isn't enough.

Fiki wrote:I am listening, I just don't understand your reasoning, or don't agree with it.
It is immaterial whether Hamilton would not stand being made a number 2 in his team.

No it isn't. Any driver who is willing to be a no 2 for year after year to a star driver such as Alonso, without even winning 1 GP, is effectively saying 'I don't mind if I'm not World Champ any time soon'. The likes of Hamilton or Alonso would never put themselves in that position, because they want to win too badly. That is the difference between true champions and the next rank. And team managers take note of that lack of determination. Hence Massa never gets a no 1 offer again..

Fiki wrote: The problem is not just speaking up for yourself, it is what you hope the outcome of your protest will be. I would suggest that Massa did what he was given the chance to do, in the time available before he would be demoted to a number 2 role: try to win the championship while their car was up to it. We have no indication as to whether he might have developed further as a driver, once he would have been a world champion, he might and he might not. As for Smedley's way of talking to him on the radio; that is no indication of Massa's mentality as a sportsman.

Where do you think Massa would have been able to go, "not standing for it" in 2010-2013? Like having the desire to win, it isn't enough just not standing for it. But even then; what makes you think he was content having to be a number 2?

Look at Ricciardo. He has left Red Bull where he realised he'd never get preference over Verstappen. He has gone to a worse team currently, because he is determined to fight for championships longer term. Massa could have made such a move had he been equally determined. But he wasn't.

I think your affection for Massa is skewing your views. if others agree with you maybe they will say so..

tim3003 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:
You don't seem to be listening to what I'm saying. Yes his team made him no 2, but the likes of Hamilton would not have stood for that. He was content to be no 2 to Alonso for 5 years!
Yes he had the desire to win, like Rosberg, but that isn't enough.

Fiki wrote:I am listening, I just don't understand your reasoning, or don't agree with it.
It is immaterial whether Hamilton would not stand being made a number 2 in his team.

No it isn't. Any driver who is willing to be a no 2 for year after year to a star driver such as Alonso, without even winning 1 GP, is effectively saying 'I don't mind if I'm not World Champ any time soon'. The likes of Hamilton or Alonso would never put themselves in that position, because they want to win too badly. That is the difference between true champions and the next rank. And team managers take note of that lack of determination. Hence Massa never gets a no 1 offer again..

Fiki wrote: The problem is not just speaking up for yourself, it is what you hope the outcome of your protest will be. I would suggest that Massa did what he was given the chance to do, in the time available before he would be demoted to a number 2 role: try to win the championship while their car was up to it. We have no indication as to whether he might have developed further as a driver, once he would have been a world champion, he might and he might not. As for Smedley's way of talking to him on the radio; that is no indication of Massa's mentality as a sportsman.

Where do you think Massa would have been able to go, "not standing for it" in 2010-2013? Like having the desire to win, it isn't enough just not standing for it. But even then; what makes you think he was content having to be a number 2?

Look at Ricciardo. He has left Red Bull where he realised he'd never get preference over Verstappen. He has gone to a worse team currently, because he is determined to fight for championships longer term. Massa could have made such a move had he been equally determined. But he wasn't.

I think your affection for Massa is skewing your views. if others agree with you maybe they will say so..

If the Red Bull had been the quickest car for the last 5 seasons instead of Merc, Ricciardo would probably be a multi time world champion and very high up in your ratings even if his driving had been exactly the same.

There are too many factors outside a drivers control for a system based only on success to be close to giving a full story I'm afraid.

mikeyg123 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:
You don't seem to be listening to what I'm saying. Yes his team made him no 2, but the likes of Hamilton would not have stood for that. He was content to be no 2 to Alonso for 5 years!
Yes he had the desire to win, like Rosberg, but that isn't enough.

Fiki wrote:I am listening, I just don't understand your reasoning, or don't agree with it.
It is immaterial whether Hamilton would not stand being made a number 2 in his team.

No it isn't. Any driver who is willing to be a no 2 for year after year to a star driver such as Alonso, without even winning 1 GP, is effectively saying 'I don't mind if I'm not World Champ any time soon'. The likes of Hamilton or Alonso would never put themselves in that position, because they want to win too badly. That is the difference between true champions and the next rank. And team managers take note of that lack of determination. Hence Massa never gets a no 1 offer again..

Fiki wrote: The problem is not just speaking up for yourself, it is what you hope the outcome of your protest will be. I would suggest that Massa did what he was given the chance to do, in the time available before he would be demoted to a number 2 role: try to win the championship while their car was up to it. We have no indication as to whether he might have developed further as a driver, once he would have been a world champion, he might and he might not. As for Smedley's way of talking to him on the radio; that is no indication of Massa's mentality as a sportsman.

Where do you think Massa would have been able to go, "not standing for it" in 2010-2013? Like having the desire to win, it isn't enough just not standing for it. But even then; what makes you think he was content having to be a number 2?

Look at Ricciardo. He has left Red Bull where he realised he'd never get preference over Verstappen. He has gone to a worse team currently, because he is determined to fight for championships longer term. Massa could have made such a move had he been equally determined. But he wasn't.

I think your affection for Massa is skewing your views. if others agree with you maybe they will say so..

If the Red Bull had been the quickest car for the last 5 seasons instead of Merc, Ricciardo would probably be a multi time world champion and very high up in your ratings even if his driving had been exactly the same.

There are too many factors outside a drivers control for a system based only on success to be close to giving a full story I'm afraid.

2014-16 maybe if he could have beat Vettel, Rosberg just got the one title and he's not that highly feted by some?

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:
You don't seem to be listening to what I'm saying. Yes his team made him no 2, but the likes of Hamilton would not have stood for that. He was content to be no 2 to Alonso for 5 years!
Yes he had the desire to win, like Rosberg, but that isn't enough.

Fiki wrote:I am listening, I just don't understand your reasoning, or don't agree with it.
It is immaterial whether Hamilton would not stand being made a number 2 in his team.

No it isn't. Any driver who is willing to be a no 2 for year after year to a star driver such as Alonso, without even winning 1 GP, is effectively saying 'I don't mind if I'm not World Champ any time soon'. The likes of Hamilton or Alonso would never put themselves in that position, because they want to win too badly. That is the difference between true champions and the next rank. And team managers take note of that lack of determination. Hence Massa never gets a no 1 offer again..

Fiki wrote: The problem is not just speaking up for yourself, it is what you hope the outcome of your protest will be. I would suggest that Massa did what he was given the chance to do, in the time available before he would be demoted to a number 2 role: try to win the championship while their car was up to it. We have no indication as to whether he might have developed further as a driver, once he would have been a world champion, he might and he might not. As for Smedley's way of talking to him on the radio; that is no indication of Massa's mentality as a sportsman.

Where do you think Massa would have been able to go, "not standing for it" in 2010-2013? Like having the desire to win, it isn't enough just not standing for it. But even then; what makes you think he was content having to be a number 2?

Look at Ricciardo. He has left Red Bull where he realised he'd never get preference over Verstappen. He has gone to a worse team currently, because he is determined to fight for championships longer term. Massa could have made such a move had he been equally determined. But he wasn't.

I think your affection for Massa is skewing your views. if others agree with you maybe they will say so..

If the Red Bull had been the quickest car for the last 5 seasons instead of Merc, Ricciardo would probably be a multi time world champion and very high up in your ratings even if his driving had been exactly the same.

There are too many factors outside a drivers control for a system based only on success to be close to giving a full story I'm afraid.

2014-16 maybe if he could have beat Vettel, Rosberg just got the one title and he's not that highly feted by some?

I'm talking about the OP's system not opinions. Ricciardo go himself into a top team and was the best driver in that top team for 3 years at least. Yet has no WDC's. Had Red Bull designed the fastest car then Ricciardo would rank very high with the OP.

tim3003 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:
You don't seem to be listening to what I'm saying. Yes his team made him no 2, but the likes of Hamilton would not have stood for that. He was content to be no 2 to Alonso for 5 years!
Yes he had the desire to win, like Rosberg, but that isn't enough.

Fiki wrote:I am listening, I just don't understand your reasoning, or don't agree with it.
It is immaterial whether Hamilton would not stand being made a number 2 in his team.

No it isn't. Any driver who is willing to be a no 2 for year after year to a star driver such as Alonso, without even winning 1 GP, is effectively saying 'I don't mind if I'm not World Champ any time soon'. The likes of Hamilton or Alonso would never put themselves in that position, because they want to win too badly. That is the difference between true champions and the next rank. And team managers take note of that lack of determination. Hence Massa never gets a no 1 offer again..

My memory being what it is, I have to say I don't recall Massa saying he was happy to play no 2 to Alonso. Especially not when not allowed to fight for a win. So perhaps what his attitude was saying, was that he was biding his time, hoping for Alonso's patience to run out, or for Alonso to get a better offer.
I don't know any F1 driver on a personal level. But every single one of them have determination written all over them. You simply don't get there if you lack it.
The true factor ranking number 1 on the principals of rich teams books is simply a driver's speed and consistency. Sometimes a driver's skill set, which doesn't have limitless development potential in the first place, matches a particular car to a tee, and he can score to his heart's content, whether wins, championships, or simply acclaim.

tim3003 wrote:

Fiki wrote: The problem is not just speaking up for yourself, it is what you hope the outcome of your protest will be. I would suggest that Massa did what he was given the chance to do, in the time available before he would be demoted to a number 2 role: try to win the championship while their car was up to it. We have no indication as to whether he might have developed further as a driver, once he would have been a world champion, he might and he might not. As for Smedley's way of talking to him on the radio; that is no indication of Massa's mentality as a sportsman.

Where do you think Massa would have been able to go, "not standing for it" in 2010-2013? Like having the desire to win, it isn't enough just not standing for it. But even then; what makes you think he was content having to be a number 2?

Look at Ricciardo. He has left Red Bull where he realised he'd never get preference over Verstappen. He has gone to a worse team currently, because he is determined to fight for championships longer term. Massa could have made such a move had he been equally determined. But he wasn't.

I think your affection for Massa is skewing your views. if others agree with you maybe they will say so..

Yes, let's look at Ricciardo. Can you name me one driver who is more "driven" than he? He was schooling Verstappen even in Max's 5th season in F1, and after his team had made him understand he wasn't the preferred driver. He wouldn't stand for it, but the choice of seats available to someone who is world champion material, simply is very restricted indeed. No hope at Ferrari, nor Mercedes. There simply was no other choice.
Which choice do you believe Massa should or could have made for 2010-2013? Which top teams were recruiting a driver on an equal treatment basis? Not Red Bull, not Mercedes, nor McLaren. Any suggestions?

I have great respect for Massa, that much is true. He really should have been world champion in 2008. And that means, in my book at least, that I should treat him as such. It's not the first time I have said the achievement of someone with that little bit less talent is greater. And no, that doesn't make him best. But definitely worthy of respect.

F1 is a business. And not always a sporting one, as 2007 and 2008 showed us.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:
You don't seem to be listening to what I'm saying. Yes his team made him no 2, but the likes of Hamilton would not have stood for that. He was content to be no 2 to Alonso for 5 years!
Yes he had the desire to win, like Rosberg, but that isn't enough.

Fiki wrote:I am listening, I just don't understand your reasoning, or don't agree with it.
It is immaterial whether Hamilton would not stand being made a number 2 in his team.

No it isn't. Any driver who is willing to be a no 2 for year after year to a star driver such as Alonso, without even winning 1 GP, is effectively saying 'I don't mind if I'm not World Champ any time soon'. The likes of Hamilton or Alonso would never put themselves in that position, because they want to win too badly. That is the difference between true champions and the next rank. And team managers take note of that lack of determination. Hence Massa never gets a no 1 offer again..

Fiki wrote: The problem is not just speaking up for yourself, it is what you hope the outcome of your protest will be. I would suggest that Massa did what he was given the chance to do, in the time available before he would be demoted to a number 2 role: try to win the championship while their car was up to it. We have no indication as to whether he might have developed further as a driver, once he would have been a world champion, he might and he might not. As for Smedley's way of talking to him on the radio; that is no indication of Massa's mentality as a sportsman.

Where do you think Massa would have been able to go, "not standing for it" in 2010-2013? Like having the desire to win, it isn't enough just not standing for it. But even then; what makes you think he was content having to be a number 2?

Look at Ricciardo. He has left Red Bull where he realised he'd never get preference over Verstappen. He has gone to a worse team currently, because he is determined to fight for championships longer term. Massa could have made such a move had he been equally determined. But he wasn't.

I think your affection for Massa is skewing your views. if others agree with you maybe they will say so..

If the Red Bull had been the quickest car for the last 5 seasons instead of Merc, Ricciardo would probably be a multi time world champion and very high up in your ratings even if his driving had been exactly the same.

There are too many factors outside a drivers control for a system based only on success to be close to giving a full story I'm afraid.

2014-16 maybe if he could have beat Vettel, Rosberg just got the one title and he's not that highly feted by some?

I'm talking about the OP's system not opinions. Ricciardo go himself into a top team and was the best driver in that top team for 3 years at least. Yet has no WDC's. Had Red Bull designed the fastest car then Ricciardo would rank very high with the OP.

Vettel would not have left if Red Bull had a dominant car.

Fiki wrote:

tim3003 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:
You don't seem to be listening to what I'm saying. Yes his team made him no 2, but the likes of Hamilton would not have stood for that. He was content to be no 2 to Alonso for 5 years!
Yes he had the desire to win, like Rosberg, but that isn't enough.

Fiki wrote:I am listening, I just don't understand your reasoning, or don't agree with it.
It is immaterial whether Hamilton would not stand being made a number 2 in his team.

No it isn't. Any driver who is willing to be a no 2 for year after year to a star driver such as Alonso, without even winning 1 GP, is effectively saying 'I don't mind if I'm not World Champ any time soon'. The likes of Hamilton or Alonso would never put themselves in that position, because they want to win too badly. That is the difference between true champions and the next rank. And team managers take note of that lack of determination. Hence Massa never gets a no 1 offer again..

My memory being what it is, I have to say I don't recall Massa saying he was happy to play no 2 to Alonso. Especially not when not allowed to fight for a win. So perhaps what his attitude was saying, was that he was biding his time, hoping for Alonso's patience to run out, or for Alonso to get a better offer.
I don't know any F1 driver on a personal level. But every single one of them have determination written all over them. You simply don't get there if you lack it.
The true factor ranking number 1 on the principals of rich teams books is simply a driver's speed and consistency. Sometimes a driver's skill set, which doesn't have limitless development potential in the first place, matches a particular car to a tee, and he can score to his heart's content, whether wins, championships, or simply acclaim.

tim3003 wrote:

Fiki wrote: The problem is not just speaking up for yourself, it is what you hope the outcome of your protest will be. I would suggest that Massa did what he was given the chance to do, in the time available before he would be demoted to a number 2 role: try to win the championship while their car was up to it. We have no indication as to whether he might have developed further as a driver, once he would have been a world champion, he might and he might not. As for Smedley's way of talking to him on the radio; that is no indication of Massa's mentality as a sportsman.

Where do you think Massa would have been able to go, "not standing for it" in 2010-2013? Like having the desire to win, it isn't enough just not standing for it. But even then; what makes you think he was content having to be a number 2?

Look at Ricciardo. He has left Red Bull where he realised he'd never get preference over Verstappen. He has gone to a worse team currently, because he is determined to fight for championships longer term. Massa could have made such a move had he been equally determined. But he wasn't.

I think your affection for Massa is skewing your views. if others agree with you maybe they will say so..

Yes, let's look at Ricciardo. Can you name me one driver who is more "driven" than he? He was schooling Verstappen even in Max's 5th season in F1, and after his team had made him understand he wasn't the preferred driver. He wouldn't stand for it, but the choice of seats available to someone who is world champion material, simply is very restricted indeed. No hope at Ferrari, nor Mercedes. There simply was no other choice.
Which choice do you believe Massa should or could have made for 2010-2013? Which top teams were recruiting a driver on an equal treatment basis? Not Red Bull, not Mercedes, nor McLaren. Any suggestions?

I have great respect for Massa, that much is true. He really should have been world champion in 2008. And that means, in my book at least, that I should treat him as such. It's not the first time I have said the achievement of someone with that little bit less talent is greater. And no, that doesn't make him best. But definitely worthy of respect.

F1 is a business. And not always a sporting one, as 2007 and 2008 showed us.

Ricciardo was schooling Verstappen?

That's news to me.

pokerman wrote:3 years at least. Yet has no WDC's. Had Red Bull designed the fastest car then Ricciardo would rank very high with the OP.

Vettel would not have left if Red Bull had a dominant car.[/quote]

Even if true, It's not relevant to the point I'm making. Which is a driver can't really effect his cars performance but his cars performance sure as hell effects his success

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Vettel would not have left if Red Bull had a dominant car.

Even if true, It's not relevant to the point I'm making. Which is a driver can't really effect his cars performance but his cars performance sure as hell effects his success

Well I'm responding to a post were you seem to be sure of a certain outcome.

If the Red Bull had been the quickest car for the last 5 seasons instead of Merc, Ricciardo would probably be a multi time world champion and very high up in your ratings even if his driving had been exactly the same.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Vettel would not have left if Red Bull had a dominant car.

Even if true, It's not relevant to the point I'm making. Which is a driver can't really effect his cars performance but his cars performance sure as hell effects his success

Well I'm responding to a post were you seem to be sure of a certain outcome.

If the Red Bull had been the quickest car for the last 5 seasons instead of Merc, Ricciardo would probably be a multi time world champion and very high up in your ratings even if his driving had been exactly the same.

Not convinced that I'd put the word 'probably' into the same category as 'sure' and 'certain.'

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Vettel would not have left if Red Bull had a dominant car.

Even if true, It's not relevant to the point I'm making. Which is a driver can't really effect his cars performance but his cars performance sure as hell effects his success

Well I'm responding to a post were you seem to be sure of a certain outcome.

If the Red Bull had been the quickest car for the last 5 seasons instead of Merc, Ricciardo would probably be a multi time world champion and very high up in your ratings even if his driving had been exactly the same.

It really needn't be this difficult. And even then it's still not relevant to what I am actually getting at. Which is a driver can't really effect his cars performance but his cars performance sure as hell effects his success.

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

tim3003 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:
You don't seem to be listening to what I'm saying. Yes his team made him no 2, but the likes of Hamilton would not have stood for that. He was content to be no 2 to Alonso for 5 years!
Yes he had the desire to win, like Rosberg, but that isn't enough.

Fiki wrote:I am listening, I just don't understand your reasoning, or don't agree with it.
It is immaterial whether Hamilton would not stand being made a number 2 in his team.

No it isn't. Any driver who is willing to be a no 2 for year after year to a star driver such as Alonso, without even winning 1 GP, is effectively saying 'I don't mind if I'm not World Champ any time soon'. The likes of Hamilton or Alonso would never put themselves in that position, because they want to win too badly. That is the difference between true champions and the next rank. And team managers take note of that lack of determination. Hence Massa never gets a no 1 offer again..

My memory being what it is, I have to say I don't recall Massa saying he was happy to play no 2 to Alonso. Especially not when not allowed to fight for a win. So perhaps what his attitude was saying, was that he was biding his time, hoping for Alonso's patience to run out, or for Alonso to get a better offer.
I don't know any F1 driver on a personal level. But every single one of them have determination written all over them. You simply don't get there if you lack it.
The true factor ranking number 1 on the principals of rich teams books is simply a driver's speed and consistency. Sometimes a driver's skill set, which doesn't have limitless development potential in the first place, matches a particular car to a tee, and he can score to his heart's content, whether wins, championships, or simply acclaim.

tim3003 wrote:

Fiki wrote: The problem is not just speaking up for yourself, it is what you hope the outcome of your protest will be. I would suggest that Massa did what he was given the chance to do, in the time available before he would be demoted to a number 2 role: try to win the championship while their car was up to it. We have no indication as to whether he might have developed further as a driver, once he would have been a world champion, he might and he might not. As for Smedley's way of talking to him on the radio; that is no indication of Massa's mentality as a sportsman.

Where do you think Massa would have been able to go, "not standing for it" in 2010-2013? Like having the desire to win, it isn't enough just not standing for it. But even then; what makes you think he was content having to be a number 2?

Look at Ricciardo. He has left Red Bull where he realised he'd never get preference over Verstappen. He has gone to a worse team currently, because he is determined to fight for championships longer term. Massa could have made such a move had he been equally determined. But he wasn't.

I think your affection for Massa is skewing your views. if others agree with you maybe they will say so..

Yes, let's look at Ricciardo. Can you name me one driver who is more "driven" than he? He was schooling Verstappen even in Max's 5th season in F1, and after his team had made him understand he wasn't the preferred driver. He wouldn't stand for it, but the choice of seats available to someone who is world champion material, simply is very restricted indeed. No hope at Ferrari, nor Mercedes. There simply was no other choice.
Which choice do you believe Massa should or could have made for 2010-2013? Which top teams were recruiting a driver on an equal treatment basis? Not Red Bull, not Mercedes, nor McLaren. Any suggestions?

I have great respect for Massa, that much is true. He really should have been world champion in 2008. And that means, in my book at least, that I should treat him as such. It's not the first time I have said the achievement of someone with that little bit less talent is greater. And no, that doesn't make him best. But definitely worthy of respect.

F1 is a business. And not always a sporting one, as 2007 and 2008 showed us.

Ricciardo was schooling Verstappen?

That's news to me.

It's old news; you must have missed it at the time.

mikeyg123 wrote:
It really needn't be this difficult. And even then it's still not relevant to what I am actually getting at. Which is a driver can't really effect his cars performance but his cars performance sure as hell effects his success.

Some drivers are able to get more out of an imperfect car than others. Some cars suit a certain driving style more than others, which may benefit one driver to the detriment of his team mate.

Indeed what is a perfect car to one driver probably isn't to the other, unless it's one that's so flexible both drivers can impose their individual preferences on it without loss of performance.

I'm thinking that the best drivers are more able to make an imperfect car win races..

tim3003 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
It really needn't be this difficult. And even then it's still not relevant to what I am actually getting at. Which is a driver can't really effect his cars performance but his cars performance sure as hell effects his success.

Some drivers are able to get more out of an imperfect car than others. Some cars suit a certain driving style more than others, which may benefit one driver to the detriment of his team mate.

Indeed what is a perfect car to one driver probably isn't to the other, unless it's one that's so flexible both drivers can impose their individual preferences on it without loss of performance.

I'm thinking that the best drivers are more able to make an imperfect car win races..

Yep but they would win even more if the car was better right? Had the Red Bull bean on par with the Merc through 2014-16 Ricciardo would surely have got better results?

Your talent may get you into a top team but it far from guarantees your top team is going to produce a championship winning car.

tim3003 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
It really needn't be this difficult. And even then it's still not relevant to what I am actually getting at. Which is a driver can't really effect his cars performance but his cars performance sure as hell effects his success.

Some drivers are able to get more out of an imperfect car than others. Some cars suit a certain driving style more than others, which may benefit one driver to the detriment of his team mate.

Indeed what is a perfect car to one driver probably isn't to the other, unless it's one that's so flexible both drivers can impose their individual preferences on it without loss of performance.

I'm thinking that the best drivers are more able to make an imperfect car win races..

I think that's true up to a point, hence why they normally say that the driver could extract more from his car than another. But mikeyg123 is right, there's definitely more that the car can affect the driver's success than the driver can affect the car's performance, if you can compare these two "quantities".

tootsie323 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Vettel would not have left if Red Bull had a dominant car.

Even if true, It's not relevant to the point I'm making. Which is a driver can't really effect his cars performance but his cars performance sure as hell effects his success

Well I'm responding to a post were you seem to be sure of a certain outcome.

If the Red Bull had been the quickest car for the last 5 seasons instead of Merc, Ricciardo would probably be a multi time world champion and very high up in your ratings even if his driving had been exactly the same.

Not convinced that I'd put the word 'probably' into the same category as 'sure' and 'certain.'

It certainly means more than might, which would be more balanced reasoning when dealing with something as vague and as I showed somewhat flawed alternate universe.

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

tim3003 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:
You don't seem to be listening to what I'm saying. Yes his team made him no 2, but the likes of Hamilton would not have stood for that. He was content to be no 2 to Alonso for 5 years!
Yes he had the desire to win, like Rosberg, but that isn't enough.

Fiki wrote:I am listening, I just don't understand your reasoning, or don't agree with it.
It is immaterial whether Hamilton would not stand being made a number 2 in his team.

No it isn't. Any driver who is willing to be a no 2 for year after year to a star driver such as Alonso, without even winning 1 GP, is effectively saying 'I don't mind if I'm not World Champ any time soon'. The likes of Hamilton or Alonso would never put themselves in that position, because they want to win too badly. That is the difference between true champions and the next rank. And team managers take note of that lack of determination. Hence Massa never gets a no 1 offer again..

My memory being what it is, I have to say I don't recall Massa saying he was happy to play no 2 to Alonso. Especially not when not allowed to fight for a win. So perhaps what his attitude was saying, was that he was biding his time, hoping for Alonso's patience to run out, or for Alonso to get a better offer.
I don't know any F1 driver on a personal level. But every single one of them have determination written all over them. You simply don't get there if you lack it.
The true factor ranking number 1 on the principals of rich teams books is simply a driver's speed and consistency. Sometimes a driver's skill set, which doesn't have limitless development potential in the first place, matches a particular car to a tee, and he can score to his heart's content, whether wins, championships, or simply acclaim.

tim3003 wrote:

Fiki wrote: The problem is not just speaking up for yourself, it is what you hope the outcome of your protest will be. I would suggest that Massa did what he was given the chance to do, in the time available before he would be demoted to a number 2 role: try to win the championship while their car was up to it. We have no indication as to whether he might have developed further as a driver, once he would have been a world champion, he might and he might not. As for Smedley's way of talking to him on the radio; that is no indication of Massa's mentality as a sportsman.

Where do you think Massa would have been able to go, "not standing for it" in 2010-2013? Like having the desire to win, it isn't enough just not standing for it. But even then; what makes you think he was content having to be a number 2?

Look at Ricciardo. He has left Red Bull where he realised he'd never get preference over Verstappen. He has gone to a worse team currently, because he is determined to fight for championships longer term. Massa could have made such a move had he been equally determined. But he wasn't.

I think your affection for Massa is skewing your views. if others agree with you maybe they will say so..

Yes, let's look at Ricciardo. Can you name me one driver who is more "driven" than he? He was schooling Verstappen even in Max's 5th season in F1, and after his team had made him understand he wasn't the preferred driver. He wouldn't stand for it, but the choice of seats available to someone who is world champion material, simply is very restricted indeed. No hope at Ferrari, nor Mercedes. There simply was no other choice.
Which choice do you believe Massa should or could have made for 2010-2013? Which top teams were recruiting a driver on an equal treatment basis? Not Red Bull, not Mercedes, nor McLaren. Any suggestions?

I have great respect for Massa, that much is true. He really should have been world champion in 2008. And that means, in my book at least, that I should treat him as such. It's not the first time I have said the achievement of someone with that little bit less talent is greater. And no, that doesn't make him best. But definitely worthy of respect.

F1 is a business. And not always a sporting one, as 2007 and 2008 showed us.

Ricciardo was schooling Verstappen?

That's news to me.

It's old news; you must have missed it at the time.

Very old news then?

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Vettel would not have left if Red Bull had a dominant car.

Even if true, It's not relevant to the point I'm making. Which is a driver can't really effect his cars performance but his cars performance sure as hell effects his success

Well I'm responding to a post were you seem to be sure of a certain outcome.

If the Red Bull had been the quickest car for the last 5 seasons instead of Merc, Ricciardo would probably be a multi time world champion and very high up in your ratings even if his driving had been exactly the same.

It really needn't be this difficult. And even then it's still not relevant to what I am actually getting at. Which is a driver can't really effect his cars performance but his cars performance sure as hell effects his success.

If Ricciardo was driving a Mercedes he would be getting better results I was only questioning this concept of him being a multiple world champion in the Red Bull using practical reasoning, even with the best car you still have to achieve it, did either Rosberg or Bottas achieve it?

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Vettel would not have left if Red Bull had a dominant car.

Even if true, It's not relevant to the point I'm making. Which is a driver can't really effect his cars performance but his cars performance sure as hell effects his success

Well I'm responding to a post were you seem to be sure of a certain outcome.

If the Red Bull had been the quickest car for the last 5 seasons instead of Merc, Ricciardo would probably be a multi time world champion and very high up in your ratings even if his driving had been exactly the same.

It really needn't be this difficult. And even then it's still not relevant to what I am actually getting at. Which is a driver can't really effect his cars performance but his cars performance sure as hell effects his success.

If Ricciardo was driving a Mercedes he would be getting better results I was only questioning this concept of him being a multiple world champion in the Red Bull using practical reasoning, even with the best car you still have to achieve it, did either Rosberg or Bottas achieve it?

I don't care Poker, it's completely irrelevant to the point I was making. I wasn't putting forward an argument based on the ability of Ricciardo.

tim3003 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
It really needn't be this difficult. And even then it's still not relevant to what I am actually getting at. Which is a driver can't really effect his cars performance but his cars performance sure as hell effects his success.

Some drivers are able to get more out of an imperfect car than others. Some cars suit a certain driving style more than others, which may benefit one driver to the detriment of his team mate.

Indeed what is a perfect car to one driver probably isn't to the other, unless it's one that's so flexible both drivers can impose their individual preferences on it without loss of performance.

I'm thinking that the best drivers are more able to make an imperfect car win races..

The car has to be capable of that in the first place, though. Alonso didn't suddenly forget how to drive after 2013.

Certainly some drivers are able to get more out of their equipment than others, but it doesn't change the fact that no matter how good the driver if the car isn't up to it then they won't win anything. It's extremely doubtful that Hamilton would have won anything at McLaren had he stayed there in 2013 and not moved to Mercedes, but that wouldn't make him a worse driver than he is today

pokerman wrote:

tootsie323 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Vettel would not have left if Red Bull had a dominant car.

Even if true, It's not relevant to the point I'm making. Which is a driver can't really effect his cars performance but his cars performance sure as hell effects his success

Well I'm responding to a post were you seem to be sure of a certain outcome.

If the Red Bull had been the quickest car for the last 5 seasons instead of Merc, Ricciardo would probably be a multi time world champion and very high up in your ratings even if his driving had been exactly the same.

Not convinced that I'd put the word 'probably' into the same category as 'sure' and 'certain.'

It certainly means more than might, which would be more balanced reasoning when dealing with something as vague and as I showed somewhat flawed alternate universe.

I sometimes think I live in an alternate universe when I'm trying to decipher some of your posts...

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
It really needn't be this difficult. And even then it's still not relevant to what I am actually getting at. Which is a driver can't really effect his cars performance but his cars performance sure as hell effects his success.

The car has to be capable of that in the first place, though. Alonso didn't suddenly forget how to drive after 2013.

Certainly some drivers are able to get more out of their equipment than others, but it doesn't change the fact that no matter how good the driver if the car isn't up to it then they won't win anything. It's extremely doubtful that Hamilton would have won anything at McLaren had he stayed there in 2013 and not moved to Mercedes, but that wouldn't make him a worse driver than he is today

I think you could say it would. Being a top driver is about making the right decisions about which team to get in. Okay, only the top few have the full choice, but as Alonso showed, they can get it wrong too and damage their careers.

I think Ricciardo's story still has to be written. He's younger than Hamilton/Vettel, so his best years probably lie from 2021 onwards, (assuming Verstappen and Leclerc don't dominate that is..)

tim3003 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
It really needn't be this difficult. And even then it's still not relevant to what I am actually getting at. Which is a driver can't really effect his cars performance but his cars performance sure as hell effects his success.

The car has to be capable of that in the first place, though. Alonso didn't suddenly forget how to drive after 2013.

Certainly some drivers are able to get more out of their equipment than others, but it doesn't change the fact that no matter how good the driver if the car isn't up to it then they won't win anything. It's extremely doubtful that Hamilton would have won anything at McLaren had he stayed there in 2013 and not moved to Mercedes, but that wouldn't make him a worse driver than he is today

I think you could say it would. Being a top driver is about making the right decisions about which team to get in. Okay, only the top few have the full choice, but as Alonso showed, they can get it wrong too and damage their careers.

I think Ricciardo's story still has to be written. He's younger than Hamilton/Vettel, so his best years probably lie from 2021 onwards, (assuming Verstappen and Leclerc don't dominate that is..)

100% disagree - getting lucky and being in the team to beat has no baring on your ability to drive.

tim3003 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
It really needn't be this difficult. And even then it's still not relevant to what I am actually getting at. Which is a driver can't really effect his cars performance but his cars performance sure as hell effects his success.

The car has to be capable of that in the first place, though. Alonso didn't suddenly forget how to drive after 2013.

Certainly some drivers are able to get more out of their equipment than others, but it doesn't change the fact that no matter how good the driver if the car isn't up to it then they won't win anything. It's extremely doubtful that Hamilton would have won anything at McLaren had he stayed there in 2013 and not moved to Mercedes, but that wouldn't make him a worse driver than he is today

I think you could say it would. Being a top driver is about making the right decisions about which team to get in. Okay, only the top few have the full choice, but as Alonso showed, they can get it wrong too and damage their careers.

I think Ricciardo's story still has to be written. He's younger than Hamilton/Vettel, so his best years probably lie from 2021 onwards, (assuming Verstappen and Leclerc don't dominate that is..)

Being a successful driver is partly about making the right decisions, but being a top driver is more to do with talent.

I don't see the difference between Hamilton's gamble with Mercedes and Alonso's gamble with Honda. Both were sold an engineering dream from teams that were anything but at their peak, but only one set of engineers came good. I can't think of any reason why that would show a greater decision-making skill on Hamilton's part, and equally I can't see any reason to suppose his driving standard would have dropped had he had to endure McLaren's turn of fortune.

tim3003 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
It really needn't be this difficult. And even then it's still not relevant to what I am actually getting at. Which is a driver can't really effect his cars performance but his cars performance sure as hell effects his success.

The car has to be capable of that in the first place, though. Alonso didn't suddenly forget how to drive after 2013.

Certainly some drivers are able to get more out of their equipment than others, but it doesn't change the fact that no matter how good the driver if the car isn't up to it then they won't win anything. It's extremely doubtful that Hamilton would have won anything at McLaren had he stayed there in 2013 and not moved to Mercedes, but that wouldn't make him a worse driver than he is today

I think you could say it would. Being a top driver is about making the right decisions about which team to get in. Okay, only the top few have the full choice, but as Alonso showed, they can get it wrong too and damage their careers.

I think Ricciardo's story still has to be written. He's younger than Hamilton/Vettel, so his best years probably lie from 2021 onwards, (assuming Verstappen and Leclerc don't dominate that is..)

Not in my opinion.

Well top drivers usually find their way in the best cars. In the case of Alonso, if he had stayed at Ferrari he could be a four time champion now working on his fifth. If Lewis stayed at Mclaren I personally think he would have been out of the sport somewhere around 2016 and his legacy would have been that of a wasted talent. I don’t think you should measure greatness with success only. But then again greatness is not really measurable. Even in other sports where there are less variables it is impossible to have an undisputed greatest player ever. I have no idea if senna would be the best driver today, driver training is so much more advanced now and the cars are so different. I have no idea if Pele would be the best soccer player today. Defenses have gotten smarter, more tactical. Novak Djokovic has accomplished more than Roger Federer did at the same age. But Roger is the one that usually receives most of the GOAT accolades. Yet Djokovic might still beat all his records and make a case for GOAT when they are both retired. Michael Jordan has accomplished more than Lebron James but his supporting cast was undoubtedly better and his competition wasn’t as fierce. But again it’s Michael who gets all the GOAT accolades. So I don’t know how to compare them really, not objectively anyway.

kleefton wrote:Well top drivers usually find their way in the best cars. In the case of Alonso, if he had stayed at Ferrari he could be a four time champion now working on his fifth. If Lewis stayed at Mclaren I personally think he would have been out of the sport somewhere around 2016 and his legacy would have been that of a wasted talent. I don’t think you should measure greatness with success only. But then again greatness is not really measurable. Even in other sports where there are less variables it is impossible to have an undisputed greatest player ever. I have no idea if senna would be the best driver today, driver training is so much more advanced now and the cars are so different. I have no idea if Pele would be the best soccer player today. Defenses have gotten smarter, more tactical. Novak Djokovic has accomplished more than Roger Federer did at the same age. But Roger is the one that usually receives most of the GOAT accolades. Yet Djokovic might still beat all his records and make a case for GOAT when they are both retired. Michael Jordan has accomplished more than Lebron James but his supporting cast was undoubtedly better and his competition wasn’t as fierce. But again it’s Michael who gets all the GOAT accolades. So I don’t know how to compare them really, not objectively anyway.

I think the best drivers get into the biggest teams. From there the driver is relying on that team to develop a championship contending car.

kleefton wrote:Well top drivers usually find their way in the best cars. In the case of Alonso, if he had stayed at Ferrari he could be a four time champion now working on his fifth. If Lewis stayed at Mclaren I personally think he would have been out of the sport somewhere around 2016 and his legacy would have been that of a wasted talent. I don’t think you should measure greatness with success only. But then again greatness is not really measurable. Even in other sports where there are less variables it is impossible to have an undisputed greatest player ever. I have no idea if senna would be the best driver today, driver training is so much more advanced now and the cars are so different. I have no idea if Pele would be the best soccer player today. Defenses have gotten smarter, more tactical. Novak Djokovic has accomplished more than Roger Federer did at the same age. But Roger is the one that usually receives most of the GOAT accolades. Yet Djokovic might still beat all his records and make a case for GOAT when they are both retired. Michael Jordan has accomplished more than Lebron James but his supporting cast was undoubtedly better and his competition wasn’t as fierce. But again it’s Michael who gets all the GOAT accolades. So I don’t know how to compare them really, not objectively anyway.

Off topic rant:

You must be joking!!!!!!!!!!! Competition not as fierce? Magic, Bird, Parish, Ewing, Hakeem, Malone, Stockton, Drexler, Barkley, Isiah, Wilkins, Kemp, Shaq, Mourning, Payton, Penny, Miller, etc.

MJ all the way!!


Off topic over!

^^^
Preach on brother preach on!!!

I got to witness MJ live countless times and I’ve seen LJ live just as many times and anyone who’s also done so will tell you the comparisons need to stop! MJ was so much better than his piers, they literally changed the rules to try and limit his sheer dominance.

As for who had a better team, the bulls had players who were among the top, but not quite elitists, and it was only thanks to Phil Jackson that they all played so cohesively well as a singular machine. The one thing that gets overlooked with MJ is that his rear gunner Scottie is the all-time greatest defender, who also happened to be one of the most complete players with excellent offensive skills. LJ is the GOAT in a league of unpolished big men who’d rather shoot from the outside than take it into the paint and finish. That’s why I rarely watch BBall these days. It’s almost as bad as watching women’s ball where they get within their range and just hurl the ball almost any way they can to drop buckets. I used to run production for the Miami HEAT & Miami SOL so I sat in on hundreds of practices and went to as many games and the difference between game play was astounding.

MJ was in a league of his own as was Michael Schumacher.

Jordan is the most over-rated player in history.

He's was very good, but not greater than Wilt, Rusell, Kareem, and Magic. He was not better than peak Bird either.