Does Jensen Desever To Be A World Champion ?

IM0

Ficus wrote: »

I think its you who doesnt understand the way basic business skills work.
Do you honestly think jenson is going to increase his salary 5 fold on the back of his world championship, not a chance in hell!!!
He is currently on £3.15million plus performance bonus so you think he is will get £15million??

Eh No..allow me to spell it out for you:D
X+5 (plus not multiply, not business skills, simple maths actually;))
.
tbh 5 was an arbritrary figure I picked, more like 2-3 really.
being world champion Id say its a fair bet his PERSONAL stock has doubled to 5-6m maybe more.

frostie500

Ficus wrote: »

He is currently on £3.15million plus performance bonus so you think he is will get £15million??

Don't forget that the wage he has now is only because he agreed to a drastic paycut to keep the team alive as his previous wage was in excess of 12 million so I'd imagine he's holding out for a pretty heffty increase to take him back to his previous level which he feels would be representative of a world champion and a driver that made a pretty big gesture earlier in the year

Frank Bullitt

A lot of people are saying that Button is quite disliked,since sunday i can see why,going around with a flag with "Great Button" on it does really give off the essence of being a big headed so and so, his press conference after the race wasnt that gracious either,each to their own i suppose.

manutd4life

based on this season button deserved to be world champion but he is not the best driver on the grid

1.alonso
2.kimi
3.vettel
4.hamilton
5.massa
6.kubica
7.rosberg
8.webber
9.button

Iron Hide

Gintonious wrote: »

A lot of people are saying that Button is quite disliked,since sunday i can see why,going around with a flag with "Great Button" on it does really give off the essence of being a big headed so and so, his press conference after the race wasnt that gracious either,each to their own i suppose.

Plenty of people around here dislike Hamilton also, i might be pushing things a bit close to the bone here but Jenson and Lewis are both Englishmen. Had this argument with a few friends earlier today who coincidentally only stated their dislike of Button and Hamilton AFTER they became serious championship contenders and then finally admitted it was to do with their nationality and not really any other reason......

Mike...

he deserves to be champion more than the sulk (hamilton)
Button actually won it with a race to spare, not with a suspicious last minute overtaking manoveure on the last bend in the last race....

Firewalkwithme

Gintonious wrote: »

A lot of people are saying that Button is quite disliked,since sunday i can see why,going around with a flag with "Great Button" on it does really give off the essence of being a big headed so and so, his press conference after the race wasnt that gracious either,each to their own i suppose.

Ok, so you dislike him. Is that what makes him undeserving of being world champion in your opinion? I don't particularly like Raikkonen and as I said earlier I think he was fortunate to win the title when he did but that does not mean to say that he didn't deserve to.

Red Storm Plenty of people around here dislike Hamilton also, i might be pushing things a bit close to the bone here but Jenson and Lewis are both Englishmen. Had this argument with a few friends earlier today who coincidentally only stated their dislike of Button and Hamilton AFTER they became serious championship contenders and then finally admitted it was to do with their nationality and not really any other reason......

I agree. It seems to be the case that some people are begrudging Button winning the title just because of his nationality though they are loath to admit it.

amacachi

Mike... wrote: »

he deserves to be champion more than the sulk (hamilton)
Button actually won it with a race to spare, not with a suspicious last minute overtaking manoveure on the last bend in the last race....

Firewalkwithme

Mike... wrote: »

he deserves to be champion more than the sulk (hamilton)
Button actually won it with a race to spare, not with a suspicious last minute overtaking manoveure on the last bend in the last race....

LOL at this one.

Suspicious for you maybe because you didn't want Hamilton to win but since he was on wet tyres and Glock was on dry tyres it makes perfect sense that he was faster than him on a wet track. Despite what you seem to think, Glock actually gained a place by staying on the dry tyres:

Timo Glock remained certain the decision to stay on dry-weather tyres, when other teams were pitting for wet-weather tyres, was a correct one: "We were running seventh before the rain came and we would have probably finished there if it had been totally dry. Instead we finished sixth so that shows the strategy was the right one." Glock added that the conditions were so poor "I didn't even know that Lewis had overtaken me until after the race."

stakey

I think we'll see his worth next year more so than this year. Brawn really exploited the changes in rules and regulations this year, in the first half of the year they really had the car to beat. The rest of the grid was really left fighting for the scraps. If anything in the first half of the season I feel Jensen showed himself to be a better driver than Rubens, but I feel he didn't really compete against the rest of the field.

With Brawn more cash strapped on the second half of the season development work on the car slowed down and I think we might have got a glimpse of where Jensen might have found himself had the other teams had that much more time before Australia. But it's all a game of 'what if' isn't it? I didn't really enjoy this season. But, I'm glad a team like Brawn won it and it's good to see the likes of Red Bull fighting at the front of the pack.

However I think we're in for a thriller next season. With the huge amount of press coverage obtained by BrawnGP next year they should be a well financed team giving Jensen the oppurtunity to scrap with Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull and hopefully a revitalised Renault too.

We'll see if he's championship material then.

thebman

Cartoon_Head wrote: »

LOL at this one.

Suspicious for you maybe because you didn't want Hamilton to win but since he was on wet tyres and Glock was on dry tyres it makes perfect sense that he was faster than him on a wet track. Despite what you seem to think, Glock actually gained a place by staying on the dry tyres:

What would Glock have to gain anyway by letting Hamilton pass

kierank01

stakey wrote: »

With Brawn more cash strapped on the second half of the season development work on the car slowed down and I think we might have got a glimpse of where Jensen might have found himself had the other teams had that much more time before Australia. But it's all a game of 'what if' isn't it? I didn't really enjoy this season. But, I'm glad a team like Brawn won it and it's good to see the likes of Red Bull fighting at the front of the pack.

However I think we're in for a thriller next season. With the huge amount of press coverage obtained by BrawnGP next year they should be a well financed team giving Jensen the oppurtunity to scrap with Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull and hopefully a revitalised Renault too.

We'll see if he's championship material then.

In the post race interviews, i think it was Nick Fry said that they were able to keep the 2010 design team intact, and not divert those resources to the 09 car, so they should have a good car next year also, but Ferrari have also stopped development of the 09 car, so they should have a good car next year also.

ednwireland

yes scored more points than anyone else thats how F1 works ffs

stakey

kierank01 wrote: »

In the post race interviews, i think it was Nick Fry said that they were able to keep the 2010 design team intact, and not divert those resources to the 09 car, so they should have a good car next year also, but Ferrari have also stopped development of the 09 car, so they should have a good car next year also.

Hopefully and seeing as FOTA has pretty much agreed to the banning of KERS next season we should see a more even field.

Slutmonkey57b

Gintonious wrote: »

A lot of people are saying that Button is quite disliked,since sunday i can see why,going around with a flag with "Great Button" on it does really give off the essence of being a big headed so and so, his press conference after the race wasnt that gracious either,each to their own i suppose.

Button is a bigheaded egomaniac?
I've heard it all now.
He is perfectly entitled to run around with his national flag.
If one of his supporters, who has been with him for years, wrote a message of support on it, that means it's in bad taste? Someone should tell the ****ing Tifosi, then. And all the Ireland rugby fans with their BOD=GOD nonsense. But I suppose it's different when the Brits do it, right?

His press conference wasn't "gracious"??? He admitted to the stress of the year, how it had affected him, how happy he was, and how he thought he deserved it, and he drove a great race. None of those things is in any way ungracious or controvertial. Hamilton got no shortage of flak for his arrogant attitude, his sense of entitlement, and his "monkeys at the back" comment. You'll never hear Button doing that. You'll also never see him grinning like a shark when asked about a win that came about as a result of gross cheating and still claim it as a victory.

manutd4life wrote: »

based on this season button deserved to be world champion but he is not the best driver on the grid

1.alonso
2.kimi
3.vettel
4.hamilton
5.massa
6.kubica
7.rosberg
8.webber
9.button

I'm choosing this list as an example of why these lists are stupid ideas in the first place. Several things here:

Webber took longer to win a race than Button, and was beaten by his rookie teammate all year, and didn't win a WDC despite being in the same car as the man who is second, despite being more experienced, yet is better than Button?

Vettel kept binning his cars into a wall or blowing engines up that served 4 other drivers perfectly well all year, yet is better than Button? That would be why Button managed to push him into a mistake and pass him out then, is it? And hasn't really shown any ability to overtake in a race? Clearly the better driver.

Kubica has been consistantly beaten by Heidfeld all the time. His only race win came about because Heidfeld (who was ahead of him) retired! More than one experienced commentator has wondered why Kubica's talent is rated so high when he hasn't really shown the depth of ability, or the results, to justify it. He's been parachuted in as "Team leader" to Renault despite not having shown any ability to lead BMW, and having a very clear "Just got out of the taxi, where's my car" attitude to the whole thing last year.

Hamilton is an exceptionally talented driver who puts at least as much effort into playing stupid mind games as he does racing, emulating his hero, Senna the cheat.

Kimi had great seasons in McLaren where he was let down by unreliable equipment. He then went totally off the boil for 3 wildly varying years with Ferrari as Massa, (another man who likes to spend his time mind****ing his teammate), who according to your list is worse than Kimi, outraced and outqualified him.

All these lists ever do in my eyes, is show why "exciting looking driving style" and "bandwagon jumping" are considered by too many viewers to be the sole criteria for "best driver". Vettel is not better than Button - because Vettel made lots of stupid mistakes, or lost control of his car. When Button had a better car than Vettel, he got the results. When Vettel had a better car than Button, he didn't. End of.

Is he worthy?
Here's an opinion from somone whose opinion is worth something.

Title of the article should give you a clue, short answer: Anyone watching Brazil who still doesn't rate Button is flat out wrong.

frostie500

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

I'm choosing this list as an example of why these lists are stupid ideas in the first place. Several things here:

Webber took longer to win a race than Button, and was beaten by his rookie teammate all year, and didn't win a WDC despite being in the same car as the man who is second, despite being more experienced, yet is better than Button?

Vettel kept binning his cars into a wall or blowing engines up that served 4 other drivers perfectly well all year, yet is better than Button? That would be why Button managed to push him into a mistake and pass him out then, is it? And hasn't really shown any ability to overtake in a race? Clearly the better driver.

Kubica has been consistantly beaten by Heidfeld all the time. His only race win came about because Heidfeld (who was ahead of him) retired! More than one experienced commentator has wondered why Kubica's talent is rated so high when he hasn't really shown the depth of ability, or the results, to justify it. He's been parachuted in as "Team leader" to Renault despite not having shown any ability to lead BMW, and having a very clear "Just got out of the taxi, where's my car" attitude to the whole thing last year.

Hamilton is an exceptionally talented driver who puts at least as much effort into playing stupid mind games as he does racing, emulating his hero, Senna the cheat.

Kimi had great seasons in McLaren where he was let down by unreliable equipment. He then went totally off the boil for 3 wildly varying years with Ferrari as Massa, (another man who likes to spend his time mind****ing his teammate), who according to your list is worse than Kimi, outraced and outqualified him.

All these lists ever do in my eyes, is show why "exciting looking driving style" and "bandwagon jumping" are considered by too many viewers to be the sole criteria for "best driver". Vettel is not better than Button - because Vettel made lots of stupid mistakes, or lost control of his car. When Button had a better car than Vettel, he got the results. When Vettel had a better car than Button, he didn't. End of.

Is he worthy?
Here's an opinion from somone whose opinion is worth something.

Title of the article should give you a clue, short answer: Anyone watching Brazil who still doesn't rate Button is flat out wrong.

So is there any unflawed drivers left in Formula 1?

thegoth

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Button

Webber took longer to win a race than Button, and was beaten by his rookie teammate all year, and didn't win a WDC despite being in the same car as the man who is second, despite being more experienced, yet is better than Button?

Ok. First, Webber never had a car capable of winning until this year. He was beaten by his teammate as you say, thats why Vettel is ahead of webber on ths list. Your totally wrong to call Vettel a rookie. He had competed in about 26 grand prix before this year and countless test sessions with BMW. Hardly a rookie

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Button
Vettel kept binning his cars into a wall or blowing engines up that served 4 other drivers perfectly well all year, yet is better than Button? That would be why Button managed to push him into a mistake and pass him out then, is it? And hasn't really shown any ability to overtake in a race? Clearly the better driver.

By your own words, you called Vettel a rookie. Even though he isn't a rookie, he is inexpierenced, hints his mistake. I remember, what could be the worst rokkie mistake ever by button. Crashing behind the safety car !!

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Button
Kubica has been consistantly beaten by Heidfeld all the time. His only race win came about because Heidfeld (who was ahead of him) retired! More than one experienced commentator has wondered why Kubica's talent is rated so high when he hasn't really shown the depth of ability, or the results, to justify it. He's been parachuted in as "Team leader" to Renault despite not having shown any ability to lead BMW, and having a very clear "Just got out of the taxi, where's my car" attitude to the whole thing last year.

Agree with you to some extend. Lets see how he goes next year. He had a great season last year compared to Heidfield. He says the car doesnt suit him this year. You cant judge him. I remember Button getting whipped by Alonso and Trulli !!

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Button
Kimi had great seasons in McLaren where he was let down by unreliable equipment. He then went totally off the boil for 3 wildly varying years with Ferrari as Massa, (another man who likes to spend his time mind****ing his teammate), who according to your list is worse than Kimi, outraced and outqualified him.

I'm not a huge Kimi fan, but most people believe he is one of the fastest drivers on the grid, but isnt really trying at the moment as he has known for some time Ferrari have realised they dont want him

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Button
All these lists ever do in my eyes, is show why "exciting looking driving style" and "bandwagon jumping" are considered by too many viewers to be the sole criteria for "best driver". Vettel is not better than Button - because Vettel made lots of stupid mistakes, or lost control of his car. When Button had a better car than Vettel, he got the results. When Vettel had a better car than Button, he didn't. End of.

This is very insulting. Most people would take variables into account when judging, well at leat here anyway. You mention Vettel again above.
To say that Vettel is faster I believe is true. To say that Vettel is more likely to crash is also true. To say that Vettel is younger than Button and less experienced is also true. Vettel is 22 with 42 starts. Button is 29 with 171 starts. This is why Vettel crashes more. In time, like Button, he will crash much less. If rating sports people is a waste, someone better tell the PGA or Alex Ferguson. They all must be equal !!

Are you saying that people who compare Ronaldo to kaka are jack asses ?

For the record my list is on the first page. Much the same except I dont have Massa in it. As a result Button is 8th. I have Lewis behind Alonso

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Button
Is he worthy?
Here's an opinion from somone whose opinion is worth something.

I wonder what his good mate and fellow British driver David Coulthard has written ?!!

Frank Bullitt

Kubica has been consistantly beaten by Heidfeld all the time. His only race win came about because Heidfeld (who was ahead of him) retired! More than one experienced commentator has wondered why Kubica's talent is rated so high when he hasn't really shown the depth of ability, or the results, to justify it. He's been parachuted in as "Team leader" to Renault despite not having shown any ability to lead BMW, and having a very clear "Just got out of the taxi, where's my car" attitude to the whole thing last year.

He didnt retire,he finished second and let him through because he was on a totally different strategy.

frostie500

The issue about Kubica being unable to lead BMW is a bit misguided in my view, it seems that the team were unwilling to be led and stuck regimentaly to their set targets for the team-points in 06, podiums in 07, wins in 08 championship in 09 and didn't listen to Kubica telling them that 2008 was a chance to win the title which may not come again. As it was BMW stated that they would concentrate on this years car and deliver a championship winning car which they plainly failed to do. As a result Munich pulled out due to poor performance which may not have happened if the team had challenged for the title in 08

thegoth

frostie500 wrote: »

The issue about Kubica being unable to lead BMW is a bit misguided in my view, it seems that the team were unwilling to be led and stuck regimentaly to their set targets for the team-points in 06, podiums in 07, wins in 08 championship in 09 and didn't listen to Kubica telling them that 2008 was a chance to win the title which may not come again. As it was BMW stated that they would concentrate on this years car and deliver a championship winning car which they plainly failed to do. As a result Munich pulled out due to poor performance which may not have happened if the team had challenged for the title in 08

Totally agree.

Iron Hide

frostie500 wrote: »

The issue about Kubica being unable to lead BMW is a bit misguided in my view, it seems that the team were unwilling to be led and stuck regimentaly to their set targets for the team-points in 06, podiums in 07, wins in 08 championship in 09 and didn't listen to Kubica telling them that 2008 was a chance to win the title which may not come again. As it was BMW stated that they would concentrate on this years car and deliver a championship winning car which they plainly failed to do. As a result Munich pulled out due to poor performance which may not have happened if the team had challenged for the title in 08

I see your point there but i dunno if Kubica and Heidfeld are two drivers i'd put in a seriously competitive car.. see post 70 for details...

frostie500

Red Storm wrote: »

I see your point there but i dunno if Kubica and Heidfeld are two drivers i'd put in a seriously competitive car.. see post 70 for details...

I was more addressing the issue with his leadership skills. It's fair enough for some people to have questions about Kubica in terms of his performances in relation to Heidfeld.

This maybe an unfair comparision but considering how highly everyone seems to rate Nico Rosberg what has he done to show that he is of considerably greater talent then Kubica? I'd view it that Kubica has a better body of work then Rosberg and quite a few other drivers in F1

Iron Hide

He's scored 34.5 points this season in a pretty poor Williams car...

frostie500

Red Storm wrote: »

He's scored 34.5 points this season in a pretty poor Williams car...

I wouldnt have thought as the Williams as being a particularly poor car this year, even though since about Valencia it has fallen back into the pack as McLaren and Kimi have gotten more out of their packages

Iron Hide

frostie500 wrote: »

I wouldnt have thought as the Williams as being a particularly poor car this year, even though since about Valencia it has fallen back into the pack as McLaren and Kimi have gotten more out of their packages

Well its apparently fallen back into the pack but Rosberg has still managed to score points with it, Williams this year have been poor. Rosberg is only beaten in the points table by both Brawns, both Red Bulls, Kimi and Lewis.. Ergo he's a damn good driver

frostie500

Red Storm wrote: »

Well its apparently fallen back into the pack but Rosberg has still managed to score points with it, Williams this year have been poor. Rosberg is only beaten in the points table by both Brawns, both Red Bulls, Kimi and Lewis.. Ergo he's a damn good driver

I've said elsewhere in this that I rate Rosberg pretty high, to be honest I was only using him as a comparision because they're similar in terms of age, experience and I'd view them to be relativly similar in terms of performance yet there has seemed to be a sea change in terms of public opinion against Kubica this season

Iron Hide

Yeah noticed that, BMW have had a fairly poor car this year though so maybe people chose to slam Kubica rather than the car...

frostie500

Red Storm wrote: »

Yeah noticed that, BMW have had a fairly poor car this year though so maybe people chose to slam Kubica rather than the car...

Yeah that's the problem where you have so many fans of F1 who don't realise that F1 is the only major series without customer cars and how every member of the team makes the difference as opposed to in some series where the driver has a considerably greater on performance of the car

Iron Hide

frostie500 wrote: »

Yeah that's the problem where you have so many fans of F1 who don't realise that F1 is the only major series without customer cars and how every member of the team makes the difference as opposed to in some series where the driver has a considerably greater on performance of the car

Bang on.. The only *customer car* so to speak is the Toro Rosso

thebman

frostie500 wrote: »

So is there any unflawed drivers left in Formula 1?

No they are human

I think Vettel will be better than Button next year or year after but wasn't this season.

frostie500

thebman wrote: »

No they are human

I think Vettel will be better than Button next year or year after but wasn't this season.

I was trying to make the point that SlutMonkey seemed to be inferring that just because Button won the title this year that he was the best driver in the world.

Slutmonkey57b

Background: The entire purpose of my post was to highlight just how ridiculous, pointless, and endlessly incorrect "rankings" of drivers like this are. It's so far beyond subjective, it's meaningless. Any argument you can make that "Driver A is better than Driver B because of Fact X", there will always be a counter point of "no he isn't because of Fact Y". There's a hidden fact here though, that is: Drivers aren't as important in F1 as people like to think they are. The drivers have to be the best in the world to make the cars work, it's as simple as that. Once you get past the "can get the car round the track", there are so many thousands of other factors to take into account that the individual driver starts to melt away. Drivers have their strengths and weaknesses - a great team (like Brawn can create) will find a way to exploit their driver's strengths and minimise the impact of his weaknesses. Martin Brudle admitted as much in one of the forums.

thegoth wrote: »

Ok. First, Webber never had a car capable of winning until this year.

Exactly the same argument can be made for Button. So, that fact (bad cars) wipes out both their previous career histories from the debate. So it comes down to this year: Button is Champion, and Webber is at best Fourth. So placing Webber above Button on a list is inconsistant with the facts, no? Button should be minimum 4 places above him. In Webber's own words: "All the other drivers had a shopping list of excuses as to why they didn't win, but he got the results". Always a plain speaker, Mark, and that's why he's great.

He was beaten by his teammate as you say, thats why Vettel is ahead of webber on ths list.

And yet luck has a large part to play in it. Also, Webber is driving with a destroyed leg, and though he wouldn't admit it, this will have affected his performance. So while Vettel beat him this year, was that because he's an intrinsically better driver, or because of Mark's leg? There's no way of knowing. Therefore, putting one over the other is pointless.


An example of how arguing both sides of a driver's abilities undermines an otherwise legitimate point:

Your totally wrong to call Vettel a rookie. He had competed in about 26 grand prix before this year and countless test sessions with BMW. Hardly a rookie

By your own words, you called Vettel a rookie. Even though he isn't a rookie, he is inexpierenced, hints his mistake. I remember, what could be the worst rokkie mistake ever by button. Crashing behind the safety car !!

According to the logic of the "rank the drivers" system, one of these arguments is correct, and Vettel is an inexperienced rookie with a great future, or a steely competitor with bad luck. Of course, the truth is more opaque: He is both of these things, sometimes at the same time. Which is why stating "Vettel is better than Button by 6 places on the list" is nonsense.

This is very insulting. Most people would take variables into account when judging, well at leat here anyway. You mention Vettel again above.
To say that Vettel is faster I believe is true. To say that Vettel is more likely to crash is also true. To say that Vettel is younger than Button and less experienced is also true. Vettel is 22 with 42 starts. Button is 29 with 171 starts. This is why Vettel crashes more. In time, like Button, he will crash much less. If rating sports people is a waste, someone better tell the PGA or Alex Ferguson. They all must be equal !!

This is the nub of it, you see. There are endless permutations of this argument you can make that will play on the strengths and weaknesses of each driver. People would like to think they can see "Ah Vettel is a better driver than Button, he should have won". There are as many arguments to support each side of the debate as you care to pick. All of them can be easily counteracted. And like I said, the facts don't support it. If Vettel's the better driver, how come he didn't win 6 races when he clearly had the fastest car on the track at the end of the season, like Button did at the beginning?

I wonder what his good mate and fellow British driver David Coulthard has written ?!!

Coulthard's had quite a good insight on all the drivers this year, and he's been fair to point out failings and strengths where he sees them. Again, there is an opportunity to dismiss his article on the "Button's his mate" argument, if you choose to take it. But if you read what he wrote, there's not a lot of disputing it. More important, if you took all us muppets and DC in a room together, and took a poll of opinions on who's a good driver and who isn't, then there's only one opinion in the room that really counts for much, isn't there?

frostie500 wrote: »

I was trying to make the point that SlutMonkey seemed to be inferring that just because Button won the title this year that he was the best driver in the world.

While I'm happy to defend Button, that's not entirely the point I was making. But on a factual basis, that's exactly what he is. All the drivers raced all year, and he beat them all by scoring more points. Therefore, he was the best driver in the world this year. Last year, Hamilton was. As soon as you make the argument "he's only champion because of the car/luck/circumstance" against Button, you must also accept that the exact same dismissal can be made of any World Champion ever. Look at the McLaren season of 14 wins out of 15. Were Senna and Prost really that good, or could any muppet have won in that car? Spoiler: Probably.

I think I covered my point of view on Button in the other thread, but what I'll state here covers it:
The argument "He's no good really, he can only win in the fastest car on the grid" is easily counteracted by pointing out that since race 8, Red Bull have had the fastest car on the grid - and did not win the races.

The argument "He's not a proper gutsy driver like Alonso or Hamilton" is nonsense in the face of Brazil, and to anyone that paid attention in the rest of the year, knows he's the only driver that did any serious overtaking all year. Other "better" drivers got stuck behind Kovi in situations where Button didn't.

The argument "It's all the car" doesn't help the fact that when another team had "the car", they couldn't do what Button did - win, win, win. And it also plays against any other Champion you ever care to mention in F1, unless they were driving a dog of a car, in which case the argument "It's all luck" plays against them instead!

I'm not prepared to waste energy in my head trying to decide "who looks best in list form" when it comes to drivers. I've watched all season long, and Button is Champion. He took any advantage he got. He fixed any mistakes he made. He was both the Dominant Force and the tossed-overboard mariner. He deserves his wins as much as anyone else deserves theirs, for the same reasons. He deserves his title, and he doesn't deserve the criticisms he's still coming in for, especially if someone's overlooking the actual facts in favour of what they want to believe.

Do you have a favourite driver that you think is better than Button? That's fine. But that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to be Champion.

thegoth

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Exactly the same argument can be made for Button. So, that fact (bad cars) wipes out both their previous career histories from the debate. So it comes down to this year: Button is Champion, and Webber is at best Fourth. So placing Webber above Button on a list is inconsistant with the facts, no? Button should be minimum 4 places above him. In Webber's own words: "All the other drivers had a shopping list of excuses as to why they didn't win, but he got the results". Always a plain speaker, Mark, and that's why he's great.

1) I said that Webber did not have a car capable of winnning to counter you argument critising Webber for taking so long to win

2) I totally disagree with what you say "So, that fact (bad cars) wipes out both their previous career histories from the debate." This is ridiculous. Are you saying that you only count a drivers results when they are in good cars ?!! Why not only count footballers perfoemances when they are in a team capable of winning the league ?

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

And yet luck has a large part to play in it. Also, Webber is driving with a destroyed leg, and though he wouldn't admit it, this will have affected his performance. So while Vettel beat him this year, was that because he's an intrinsically better driver, or because of Mark's leg? There's no way of knowing. Therefore, putting one over the other is pointless.

Possible I suppose, but remember Schmuacher came back from a badly broken leg. Missed six races. Jumped back in the car, and put it on pole from Irvine by almost a second. The FIA dont let people with bad injuries drive.

An example of how arguing both sides of a driver's abilities undermines an otherwise legitimate point:

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

According to the logic of the "rank the drivers" system, one of these arguments is correct, and Vettel is an inexperienced rookie with a great future, or a steely competitor with bad luck. Of course, the truth is more opaque: He is both of these things, sometimes at the same time. Which is why stating "Vettel is better than Button by 6 places on the list" is nonsense.

I stand by this. Because I have a 6 place differenece, does not mean there is a massive difference between them. Just a few tenths at most or over a season maybe 15 points

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

If Vettel's the better driver, how come he didn't win 6 races when he clearly had the fastest car on the track at the end of the season, like Button did at the beginning?

You mean in your opinion he had the best car. I dont think thats the case at all. Brawn were strong in some i.e Monza which I was at, Ferrari and Force India at Spa, Lewis in the KERS Mclaren was the driver to beat in a few. That statement is just wrong, or at best, only your opinion

Iron Hide

thegoth wrote: »

1) I said that Webber did not have a car capable of winnning to counter you argument critising Webber for taking so long to win

2) I totally disagree with what you say "So, that fact (bad cars) wipes out both their previous career histories from the debate." This is ridiculous. Are you saying that you only count a drivers results when they are in good cars ?!! Why not only count footballers perfoemances when they are in a team capable of winning the league ?


Possible I suppose, but remember Schmuacher came back from a badly broken leg. Missed six races. Jumped back in the car, and put it on pole from Irvine by almost a second. The FIA dont let people with bad injuries drive.

An example of how arguing both sides of a driver's abilities undermines an otherwise legitimate point:



I stand by this. Because I have a 6 place differenece, does not mean there is a massive difference between them. Just a few tenths at most or over a season maybe 15 points






You mean in your opinion he had the best car. I dont think thats the case at all. Brawn were strong in some i.e Monza which I was at, Ferrari and Force India at Spa, Lewis in the KERS Mclaren was the driver to beat in a few. That statement is just wrong, or at best, only your opinion

You obviously have not been watching the same F1 season as the rest of us, either that or you haven't a clue about the sport. Red Bull have had the quicker car since about Silverstone. FACT, but they have inconsistent drivers....

frostie500

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

While I'm happy to defend Button, that's not entirely the point I was making. But on a factual basis, that's exactly what he is. All the drivers raced all year, and he beat them all by scoring more points. Therefore, he was the best driver in the world this year.

Last year, Hamilton was. As soon as you make the argument "he's only champion because of the car/luck/circumstance" against Button, you must also accept that the exact same dismissal can be made of any World Champion ever. Look at the McLaren season of 14 wins out of 15. Were Senna and Prost really that good, or could any muppet have won in that car? Spoiler: Probably.

I think I covered my point of view on Button in the other thread, but what I'll state here covers it:
The argument "He's no good really, he can only win in the fastest car on the grid" is easily counteracted by pointing out that since race 8, Red Bull have had the fastest car on the grid - and did not win the races.

The argument "He's not a proper gutsy driver like Alonso or Hamilton" is nonsense in the face of Brazil, and to anyone that paid attention in the rest of the year, knows he's the only driver that did any serious overtaking all year. Other "better" drivers got stuck behind Kovi in situations where Button didn't.

The argument "It's all the car" doesn't help the fact that when another team had "the car", they couldn't do what Button did - win, win, win. And it also plays against any other Champion you ever care to mention in F1, unless they were driving a dog of a car, in which case the argument "It's all luck" plays against them instead!

I'm not prepared to waste energy in my head trying to decide "who looks best in list form" when it comes to drivers. I've watched all season long, and Button is Champion. He took any advantage he got. He fixed any mistakes he made. He was both the Dominant Force and the tossed-overboard mariner. He deserves his wins as much as anyone else deserves theirs, for the same reasons. He deserves his title, and he doesn't deserve the criticisms he's still coming in for, especially if someone's overlooking the actual facts in favour of what they want to believe.

I've said all the way through threads this week that Button deserves to be world champion, but that doesn't make him the best driver in the world. In a customer car formulae (GP2, F3, etc) the best driver will tend to win the championship when all things are equal but in F1 all things aren't equal. That's the point of fans having opinions about drivers, teams, engines etc.

It seems like you are quite happy to judge Button over the course of this year and forget about the rest of his F1 career where he flashed as bright as anyone at times but struggled wildly at other times in comparison to team mates performance and team managers performance.

In relation to the relative car advantages enjoyed by Brawn and Red Bull, when Brawn had the better car no other team was fast enough to challenge them due to the development time needed to get double diffusers/KERS working as opposed to when Red Bull had the fastest car they were invariably at times when McLaren and Ferrari got their car together or when Force India were competitive also so I wouldn't critise their drivers for being unable to win as many races as Brawn in when in the preeminent car

amacachi

frostie500 wrote: »

In a customer car formulae (GP2, F3, etc) the best driver will tend to win the championship when all things are equal but in F1 all things aren't equal. That's the point of fans having opinions about drivers, teams, engines etc.

Rubbish, it still comes down to budget and resources.

Hell even in NASCAR they're pretty much spec cars yet Jimmie Johnson has won the title the last 3 years and now at the business end of this season has won the last 2 races. He can ease away when he feels like it it often seems, and while it'd be great to say it's down to him it's gotta be down to the car for the most part.

frostie500

amacachi wrote: »

Rubbish, it still comes down to budget and resources.

Hell even in NASCAR they're pretty much spec cars yet Jimmie Johnson has won the title the last 3 years and now at the business end of this season has won the last 2 races. He can ease away when he feels like it it often seems, and while it'd be great to say it's down to him it's gotta be down to the car for the most part.

But Johnson doesn't win because his car is better then someone elses; he wins because himself and Chad Knaus get the most out of it each week. The point in a series such as NASCAR is parity where there isn't a big difference between the cars mechanically, its down to being able to engineer and drive the car to the maximum.

amacachi

frostie500 wrote: »

But Johnson doesn't win because his car is better then someone elses; he wins because himself and Chad Knaus get the most out of it each week. The point in a series such as NASCAR is parity where there isn't a big difference between the cars mechanically, its down to being able to engineer and drive the car to the maximum.

Same in GP2 F3 etc. etc. Only the drivers with a lot of financial backing and therefore more to throw at the car and mechanics ever have a chance to get near the top of the championship.
What allows them to get the most of out the car? There's so little that can be obviously adjusted on a NASCAR car that it has to be more than a wedge adjustment or tyre pressures and it takes money to find and test those things, just like in GP2.

Apart from anything else F1 has been closer on laptimes than GP2 in any weekend I've followed the GP2.

frostie500

amacachi wrote: »

Same in GP2 F3 etc. etc. Only the drivers with a lot of financial backing and therefore more to throw at the car and mechanics ever have a chance to get near the top of the championship.
What allows them to get the most of out the car? There's so little that can be obviously adjusted on a NASCAR car that it has to be more than a wedge adjustment or tyre pressures and it takes money to find and test those things, just like in GP2.

Apart from anything else F1 has been closer on laptimes than GP2 in any weekend I've followed the GP2.

But do you not think that in a series like NASCAR its easier to be objective when looking at drivers performances rather then in F1 where you have to read between many different factors? I'd view it that in NASCAR or GP2 it's considerably easier to see which drivers are performing better then others whereas in F1 you have to take many more factors into account to come to a view on a driver

thegoth

Red Storm wrote: »

You obviously have not been watching the same F1 season as the rest of us, either that or you haven't a clue about the sport. Red Bull have had the quicker car since about Silverstone. FACT, but they have inconsistent drivers....

Number one, that is quiet an insulting remark

Number two. You are actually wrong. I will detail it since the British GP. I will take low fuel qualifying 2 sessions as the bench mark as all cars are at their fastest then. I will highlight in bold the races where RedBull were not the fastest car

Germany - Redbull had the fastest car (Damp track I think in Q2)
Hungry - RedBull had the fastest car
European GP - Brawn of Rubens and both McLarens were faster than RedBull
Spa - Toyota faster than first RedBull. Everyone else faster than second RedBull
Italian GP - First RedBull sets 6th fastest time
Singapore - First RedBull sets 2nd fastest time and is well down the race and race fastest lap order
Japan - RedBull fastest
Brazil - 2nd fastest, but I will concede RebBull were the fastest, just car. Sutil put in a freak lap to be fastest

So out of the 8 races since the British gp, i make it that Redbull had the fastest car only 50% of the time, not the 100% of the time you claimed. I backup what I say with facts. I dont pull something out of thin air and try and ram it down peoples throat as gospel. By the way, I picked Q2, like I said as all cars have min weight and are going flat out. I had not idea how this would turn out when I started

amacachi

frostie500 wrote: »

But do you not think that in a series like NASCAR its easier to be objective when looking at drivers performances rather then in F1 where you have to read between many different factors? I'd view it that in NASCAR or GP2 it's considerably easier to see which drivers are performing better then others whereas in F1 you have to take many more factors into account to come to a view on a driver

I actually don't. At first glance yes, since it's just driving round in a circle in equal cars, but there's simply no way that the 43 drivers out there week in week out could be in equal cars with the difference in laptimes between them. Look at Kyle Busch as an example, he may well be the fastest driver in it but for whatever reason he's very, very hit and miss. When he's having a bad race it's rare for the team to turn it around, whereas Johnson's team have that ability, I'd never rule JJ out unless he was more laps behind than the number of yellow flags that could possibly come out in the race. :P Mark Martin is another example, this year the team seem to have had the car set-up brilliantly right from the start of a lot of races and need to make far fewer adjustments.
There has to be some variable there and the amount of money behind the teams and drivers is the biggest one I'd wager.

amacachi

thegoth wrote: »

Number one, that is quiet an insulting remark

Number two. You are actually wrong. I will detail it since the British GP. I will take low fuel qualifying 2 sessions as the bench mark as all cars are at their fastest then. I will highlight in bold the races where RedBull were not the fastest car

Germany - Redbull had the fastest car (Damp track I think in Q2)
Hungry - RedBull had the fastest car
European GP - Brawn of Rubens and both McLarens were faster than RedBull
Spa - Toyota faster than first RedBull. Everyone else faster than second RedBull
Italian GP - First RedBull sets 6th fastest time
Singapore - First RedBull sets 2nd fastest time and is well down the race and race fastest lap order
Japan - RedBull fastest
Brazil - 2nd fastest, but I will concede RebBull were the fastest, just car. Sutil put in a freak lap to be fastest

So out of the 8 races since the British gp, i make it that Redbull had the fastest car only 50% of the time, not the 100% of the time you claimed. I backup what I say with facts. I dont pull something out of thin air and try and ram it down peoples throat as gospel. By the way, I picked Q2, like I said as all cars have min weight and are going flat out. I had not idea how this would turn out when I started

On longer runs they were fastest in at least 6 of the 8 races. You can't directly use 1-lap runs to determine the speed of the car when people like Trulli have an ability to pull out a few tenths or more on a single lap.

frostie500

The point I'm trying to make though is that because the cars aren't manufactured/designed by the teams comparison between them is easier then in F1 where more variables come into performance.

thegoth

amacachi wrote: »

On longer runs they were fastest in at least 6 of the 8 races. You can't directly use 1-lap runs to determine the speed of the car when people like Trulli have an ability to pull out a few tenths or more on a single lap.

True, but Trulli is a freak. The problem with fastest laps, is that you can have someone pitting very late, putting in low fuel and new tyres. This warps the presentation. In the hungrian GP this year, webber set fastest lap on lap 65. He finished about 20 seconds behind the leader, and didnt look like a condender all weekend. When you look at the pit stops, you see the reason. He pitted 5 laps after Kimi, and 4 after the winner, Lewis, so when Webber had new tyres, he also had lower fuel. Thats the reason he set the fastest race lap.

This sort of thing happends all the time. Low run runs are the best way to judge car and driver speed. Nott 100% perfect, but its the best we have. Thats how Williams decided on drivers if its a close call. They have had a few winter shoot outs in the last few years

Slutmonkey57b

thegoth wrote: »

Number one, that is quiet an insulting remark

Number two. You are actually wrong. I will detail it since the British GP. I will take low fuel qualifying 2 sessions as the bench mark as all cars are at their fastest then. I will highlight in bold the races where RedBull were not the fastest car

Germany - Redbull had the fastest car (Damp track I think in Q2)
Hungry - RedBull had the fastest car
European GP - Brawn of Rubens and both McLarens were faster than RedBull
Spa - Toyota faster than first RedBull. Everyone else faster than second RedBull
Italian GP - First RedBull sets 6th fastest time
Singapore - First RedBull sets 2nd fastest time and is well down the race and race fastest lap order
Japan - RedBull fastest
Brazil - 2nd fastest, but I will concede RebBull were the fastest, just car. Sutil put in a freak lap to be fastest

So out of the 8 races since the British gp, i make it that Redbull had the fastest car only 50% of the time, not the 100% of the time you claimed. I backup what I say with facts. I dont pull something out of thin air and try and ram it down peoples throat as gospel. By the way, I picked Q2, like I said as all cars have min weight and are going flat out. I had not idea how this would turn out when I started

In-race fastest laps aren't a good measure - Alonso has a lot of fastest laps this year and nobody would argue that the Renault is a racewinning car.

Equally, low-fuel drags in Q2 are a good benchmark, but are dependant on a driver's one-lap pace. On a pure Q2 basis, the Brawns weren't the fastest cars in all 7 races at the start of the season, so your argument in defense of Red Bull's failure to win races, actually undermines your argument against Brawn's wins at the start of the year.

I think that on balance, no car has been "Fastest" at every track all the way through, but the cars with the best pace have been Brawn and Red Bull. If you argue that when Red Bull were strong, so were McLaren, then when Brawn were strong, so were Toyota, or a couple of other teams.

Thegoth, you need to re-read the first paragraph of my second post here. All I'm doing is taking the time to show that when anyone draws up a list, you're saying "Best drivers are in this order, here's why". The problem is, for every argument you make in favour of your list, there is an argument that proves the exact opposite that has an equal amount of proof behind it. I don't actually care about where each driver ends up on an arbitrary numerical list.

thegoth wrote: »

1) I said that Webber did not have a car capable of winnning to counter you argument critising Webber for taking so long to win

2) I totally disagree with what you say "So, that fact (bad cars) wipes out both their previous career histories from the debate." This is ridiculous. Are you saying that you only count a drivers results when they are in good cars ?!! Why not only count footballers perfoemances when they are in a team capable of winning the league ?

No - what I said was very clear: If you take the argument "he didn't have a winning car before" to support one driver, you also have to apply the same logic to the other driver in the comparison. Both Button and Webber were in the same situation up to this year, so this year is the only one that "counts", IF you are taking the "winning car" argument into effect.

Possible I suppose, but remember Schmuacher came back from a badly broken leg. Missed six races. Jumped back in the car, and put it on pole from Irvine by almost a second. The FIA dont let people with bad injuries drive.

Johnny Herbert drove when he was missing several toes and could hardly bear to put his foot on the pedal - his solution was simply to tell them it wasn't that painful (ie lie his head off!)

I stand by this. Because I have a 6 place differenece, does not mean there is a massive difference between them. Just a few tenths at most or over a season maybe 15 points

That's perfectly valid as an opinion, but it also undermines the purpose of the list in the first place!

You mean in your opinion he had the best car. I dont think thats the case at all. Brawn were strong in some i.e Monza which I was at, Ferrari and Force India at Spa, Lewis in the KERS Mclaren was the driver to beat in a few. That statement is just wrong, or at best, only your opinion

Again, there's just as much evidence to support the theory that Red Bull had the fastest car in more races over the course of the year than Brawn did as there is to support the view that Button can only win in the fastest car.
Your last comment, again, only serves to undermine these lists!

thegoth

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

In-race fastest laps aren't a good measure - Alonso has a lot of fastest laps this year and nobody would argue that the Renault is a racewinning car.

Equally, low-fuel drags in Q2 are a good benchmark, but are dependant on a driver's one-lap pace. On a pure Q2 basis, the Brawns weren't the fastest cars in all 7 races at the start of the season, so your argument in defense of Red Bull's failure to win races, actually undermines your argument against Brawn's wins at the start of the year.

Actually he doesn't. You are very quick to express on opinion without backing it up with facts. I gave you facts to counter what you said about RedBull having the best car since the British GP. I realise that Q2 fastest laps are not the perfect metric, but thats because there is not perfect metric. Its widely accepted as the best though. How about you use some facts to backup your opinion

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

I think that on balance, no car has been "Fastest" at every track all the way through, but the cars with the best pace have been Brawn and Red Bull. If you argue that when Red Bull were strong, so were McLaren, then when Brawn were strong, so were Toyota, or a couple of other teams.

So are you now agreeing that RedBull did not have the fastest car for all races since the British GP?

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Thegoth, you need to re-read the first paragraph of my second post here. All I'm doing is taking the time to show that when anyone draws up a list, you're saying "Best drivers are in this order, here's why". The problem is, for every argument you make in favour of your list, there is an argument that proves the exact opposite that has an equal amount of proof behind it. I don't actually care about where each driver ends up on an arbitrary numerical list.

In situations where drivers are closely matched, such as Alonso and Lewis, I'd agree with you

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

No - what I said was very clear: If you take the argument "he didn't have a winning car before" to support one driver, you also have to apply the same logic to the other driver in the comparison. Both Button and Webber were in the same situation up to this year, so this year is the only one that "counts", IF you are taking the "winning car" argument into effect.

No, they had teammates before they had winning cars. Button has been up against Ralf Schmuacher, JV, Trulli, Alonso, and Rubens. Webber has been against and beaten Heidfield and Rosberg. Are you saying all those performances against teammates count for nothing as they didnt have a winning car. If that was the case Sata would still be in F1

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Johnny Herbert drove when he was missing several toes and could hardly bear to put his foot on the pedal - his solution was simply to tell them it wasn't that painful (ie lie his head off!)

Coule be an excuse. Drivers are famous for it.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Again, there's just as much evidence to support the theory that Red Bull had the fastest car in more races over the course of the year than Brawn did as there is to support the view that Button can only win in the fastest car.
Your last comment, again, only serves to undermine these lists!

I dont unstand
1) Please show me the evidence that Reb Bull had the fastest car in more races than Brawn ? Maybe they had, and their drivers crashed too much or the engine let them down

2) Please explain how my last comment undermines lists. Its a favourite expression of yours, but you dont explain it

Slutmonkey57b

I think there's some confusion here. You still appear to think I'm arguing that "my" driver, Button deserves to be higher up the list, while other drivers should be moved down. I'm not. I'm also not getting specifically at your choices, or your arguments pro or contra certain situations. All I'm doing is pointing out how easy it is to undermine the "evidence" the conclusions that these lists are based on is.

thegoth wrote: »

Actually he doesn't. You are very quick to express on opinion without backing it up with facts. I gave you facts to counter what you said about RedBull having the best car since the British GP. I realise that Q2 fastest laps are not the perfect metric, but thats because there is not perfect metric. Its widely accepted as the best though.

Did I specify a number of fastest laps? Did I offer statistics? Alonso has set the fastest lap "a number" of times in races this year, and during practice/qualifying sessions. He also ended up on pole for one race. So, if you use pure "look he got fastest laps", then you can make an argument that the Renault is a fast car. But you have to then ignore a lot of other facts and numbers that say the opposite.

How about you use some facts to backup your opinion

The whole purpose of my getting involved with this is to show you that
a) Lists like this are meaningless, arbitrary justifications of opinion, and have no value whatsoever.
b) Whatever "facts" someone uses to back up their opinion, can easily be negated by pointing out other "facts" that have been overlooked, or intangible, unmeasurable aspects (like is Mark Webber driving at full capacity).

So are you now agreeing that RedBull did not have the fastest car for all races since the British GP?

I'm pointing out that anyone who says "Brawn had the fastest car bar none in the first seven races" is as equally mistaken, or selective in their information picking, as someone who says "Red Bull had the fastest car in the last 8 races".

No, they had teammates before they had winning cars. Button has been up against Ralf Schmuacher, JV, Trulli, Alonso, and Rubens. Webber has been against and beaten Heidfield and Rosberg. Are you saying all those performances against teammates count for nothing as they didnt have a winning car. If that was the case Sata would still be in F1

This is veering off the point I made, isn't it? Let's start again:
Webber > Button, viz "I said so"
BUT
Webber took longer to win than Button
SO
Button > Webber
COUNTERPOINT
Webber didn't have a winning car until this year so he couldn't have won
SO
Webber > Button
COUNTERPOINT
Neither did Button, so if that's your metric, only this year can be counted.
SO
Button > Webber

You see what I'm getting at? Round and round in circles. There isn't a "right" answer here. If you're a fan of the sport, then there isn't a need to have one driver ranked higher than the other. They're both good drivers. Maybe two people sitting side by side watching the same races come to different conclusions about who's better. You know what? They could both be wrong!

Incidentally, JB was never Alonso's teammate in F1 (Alonso was test driver) so by dint of your mistaken fact, I win! Woooooooo! (an example of the sort of stupid justifications people use in these arguments)

Coule be an excuse. Drivers are famous for it.

He wasn't using an excuse - he was covering up an injury so that he could get in the race. This is a counter point to the "FIA wouldn't let a damaged driver race". The FIA aren't the most trustworthy, or thorough bunch you know.

2) Please explain how my last comment undermines lists. Its a favourite expression of yours, but you dont explain it

Again, lists are made up of opinions. Your dismissal of my assertion that Red Bull had the same opportunity to win that Brawn did was that it's "at best, only your opinion". would be a killer counterpunch - if, like I said, it didn't expose the fact that lists of "best drivers" are nothing more than opinion backed up with whatever cherry picked backup the list maker chooses to use.

thegoth

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Point 1) I never for a second said or implied that Button was your driver, or you were a fan of his. For the record, I am a Jensen fan

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

The whole purpose of my getting involved with this is to show you that
a) Lists like this are meaningless, arbitrary justifications of opinion, and have no value whatsoever.
b) Whatever "facts" someone uses to back up their opinion, can easily be negated by pointing out other "facts" that have been overlooked, or intangible, unmeasurable aspects (like is Mark Webber driving at full capacity).

Just wrong. It depends on the quality of the facts and data available and how this is analysed. Ever wonder how bookies arrive at odds or insurance companies arrive at premiums or professional gamblers make money ? They basically process facts i.e data to arrive at a likely outcome. Thats basically what a list is. This gives me an idea for a new thread which could become a little game..... Will post

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

I'm pointing out that anyone who says "Brawn had the fastest car bar none in the first seven races" is as equally mistaken, or selective in their information picking, as someone who says "Red Bull had the fastest car in the last 8 races".

100% agree. I never said or implied. Red Bull had the best overall package in Australia

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

This is veering off the point I made, isn't it? Let's start again:
Webber > Button, viz "I said so"
BUT
Webber took longer to win than Button
SO
Button > Webber
COUNTERPOINT
Webber didn't have a winning car until this year so he couldn't have won
SO
Webber > Button
COUNTERPOINT
Neither did Button, so if that's your metric, only this year can be counted.
SO
Button > Webber

Rubbish. I never based any drivers performance or ability on how long it took them to win. I judge them by the quality of their team mate. I responded to something you said about it taking Webber more GPS to win than Button by saying Webber never had a winning car til this year. This has nothing to do with my belief that Webber is a better driver

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Incidentally, JB was never Alonso's teammate in F1 (Alonso was test driver) so by dint of your mistaken fact, I win! Woooooooo! (an example of the sort of stupid justifications people use in these arguments)

Yes, he was test driver. No inaccurate fact out of all I quoted isnt bad.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Again, lists are made up of opinions. Your dismissal of my assertion that Red Bull had the same opportunity to win that Brawn did was that it's "at best, only your opinion". would be a killer counterpunch - if, like I said, it didn't expose the fact that lists of "best drivers" are nothing more than opinion backed up with whatever cherry picked backup the list maker chooses to use.

I respectfully disagree. Think there is only one way to sort this. A poll :-) . Enjoyed the debate.

andyman

Mike... wrote: »

he deserves to be champion more than the sulk (hamilton)
Button actually won it with a race to spare, not with a suspicious last minute overtaking manoveure on the last bend in the last race....

I knew I'd have to bring this back up. Look at the times of both Toyota's, who were on dry tyres.

Thank you and good night.

amacachi

andyman wrote: »

I knew I'd have to bring this back up. Look at the times of both Toyota's, who were on dry tyres.

Thank you and good night.

I already facepalmed that earlier. :pac: