There seems to be a lot of polarization on ALL the "Driver A vs Driver B" threads. So in the interest of keeping those clean and on topic...

Does a WDC set one driver clearly above his teammate???

Bigger question: does a WDC automatically set a driver above other drivers who perhaps are seen as more talented?

Is a WDC the trump card in any argument?

i.e

Fan A "Button's better"
Fan B "Vettel's more talented, and faster"
Fan A "Button's a WDC, what's Vettel done?"

(silence)

I dont think it can be the ultimate argument settler, simply because F1's not a spec series and thus any 'car advantage' must be taken into account. Sure, a WDC's nice to have when you retire, but I dont see it as being the great differentiator.

If you're a fanboy of said driver, it does; if not, it doesn't.

Sometimes almost everything, sometimes almost nothing, usually something inbetween.

In terms of publicity, it means a lot.

But "publicity" is shorthand for "convincing the uneducated, unwashed and unbrained that you are better than you are". St Jade Goody had a lot of publicity for example.

Gilles Villeneuve will always be a greater driver than Jacques, despite the latter having won a world title. Moss will always be greater than practically EVERY world champion. Nuvolari, Rosemeyer, Caracciola did not need world titles to be great. Curtis Turner and Fireball Roberts never won NASCAR titles and are still revered.

Basically, if someone thinks driver A is better than driver B solely because driver A has won a title and B has not, their opinion can very, very, very safely be ignored.

The history books will show one simple fact that so and so won the WDC in such and such a year....
It tends not to go on to say this a car was far better as some points in a season and worse at other points.
The greatest season in years IMHO is what we have this year.
But whoever wins it will still just be a WDC in the year 2010 is it worth more than say last year hell yes....IMHO
will the history books say that hell no.
History books so far will say Button to 2009 152 races 1 win, 2009 6 wins 1 WDC and part of the WCC team
Vettel... 47 races 5 victories

Well, it certainly doesn't hurt, does it?

To me, one WDC can be an iffy thing. Any driver who took at least 2 titles is a good step above the rest. I still rate Alonso higher than Hamilton & Button, for instance.

Well, any driver on that grid is capable of getting a WDC if their car is the best car on the grid. We all agree they're all pretty evenly matched, it seems who ever has the best car, wins in this sport.

I think it depends on the circumstances in which the WDC was won, there are a few WDC's who werent considered being the best driver when they won it such was their car advantage, so some WDC's are more valid than others. General speaking the best drivers gravitate to the best teams so tend to be seen as deserving WDC's when they win, last season the best drivers were perceived to be in underperforming cars so there are question marks over the worthiness of Buttons WDC which can be validated by how he performs relative to Lewis Hamilton who many see as a valid WDC.

If Jenson had gone to Red Bull to team up with Webber i wouldnt have taken it as a certainty that he would beat him just because he was WDC

Not actually...I would come back with Vettel has outscored every team mate and Button???

It depends on who their teammates are as well though

Most World Championships were handed out on a plate like Ferrero Rocher according to people on this forum.

worthless thread.

wdc = achievement
no wdc = no achievement

It tends to be fans of drivers who have not won a WDC

So Stirling Moss didn't achieve anything?

not during the championships. but eventually it comes down to what have you got to show for your time in the sport. at this point doesnt matter how talented you are, if you havent won anything then you have been as successful either in your car or your choice of teams.

Tell that to those arguing Button/Vettel/Massa/Webber.... And it is not an open/shut case. Are you truely saying that Keke, Button, and Damon were better than Moss and Gilles??? Sorry but as with Keke, I don't think there will be a lot of hot buzz about Buttons WDC in ten years.

Thats your opinion of which is required to protect the truth of some of the so called great drivers you named Gilles being one of them.

What did Gilles ever do in reality? Very little in fact other than drive like an idiot - mind you I wouldn't mind watching a field of said idiots, very entertaining

When I say that Jody Scheckter and his son JV were better than Gilles I can prove it and back it up with stats and with both of them being WDC's.

All you have is emotion as evidence, yeah good luck with that in court.

I like this question, seems to me, difficult and complicated, and almost, philosophical to answer.

Obviously, all drivers want to be Champion, so, if you go through your whole career without ever being Champion, even if you were super talented, and won a billion races, I think missing out on the Championship does take a little away from the "perception" of what your career really was.

Of course, MOST drivers that enter Formula 1 are potential World Champions. Some people tend to believe winning a World Championship is an easy thing if you have the right car, well, it isn't!!! So many thing absolutely HAVE to go right, it's almost as if planets have to align for you to win one. You might have the best car, but if you screw it up every time, you're not going to win it, or if your crew screws up, you're also not gonna win, not have reliability on your side, and if simple enough, you're just unlucky, you're not going to win. So, being Champion, is a combination of so many things, it's not as easy as 1, 2, 3, as some people here seem to think, it is easier when you drive for the better teams, but you still have to get the job done. Nobody wins a Championship by chance.

As far as the people who think any driver in the best car can win, well, good drivers attract good teams, if you're REALLY that good, chances are, you'll get your chance, and if you never get your chance, you might have never been that good to begin with.

To answer the original question, being Champion, in my opinion, doesn't make you better, but the achievement will place you in a status that will last a lifetime, and if you never achieve it, even if you were always the best driver in the field, you may always be known as the driver that almost could.

Let me put a little slant on the question - what do you think a drivers answer would be to that question?

This is what they're here for, working towards and is the end-game so of course it's a differentiator!

Did you see the look on Lewis and Jensons' faces when they realised they were WDC? Try telling them that's NOT the biggest thing in their lives and the goal they've been working towards their entire driving career!

Yes we all respect and appreciate hard-sloggers who are still fighting, showing guts and skill without having reached the pinnacle of their chosen discipline (a WDC) guys like Webber; but like I said in the other thread to devalue the worth of the achievement is to devalue the Sport we so vehemently support.

A WDC definitely achieves something. A quick driver also achieves something, but not enough.
If you are racing, you should not only be fast, but also be constant, concentrated, reliable, consider the strategies, decide when to risk yourself and when to conserve.
If a driver is not a WDC, you should ask yourself why. Is he lack of something or else.
Just like, if you and your classmate with the same school score and work in the same company, after one year,your classmate is promoted to be the manager and you are still the worker. Why? Simply he is better than you!
So, WDC is the ultimate honour of a racing driver!

Didn't Gilles back Sheckter up for him to win the 1979 WDC, Gilles would surely have been 1982 WDC but was killed. and he was a far better driver than his son.

He was Fangio's towel boy wasn't he?

What is a stupid question?

I agree. Life is always fair and hard work is always rewarded.

Ultimately in the record book it take a WDC. However I don't see it as the be all end all of a driver. Take Hammy for example. What he did his first year established my opinion of him. A very solid great driver. His WDC just solidified that. Then take Button. I see him as a GOOD consistent driver. His WDC did not up him to great. However with the two in the same team this year Button could change my mind. If he beats Hammy his stock raises in my book. I think you need to take who the teammate and team the driver was in into account also. Vettel won in a TR!!! Do you see Sutil winning in a FI?

I can't see taking the circumstances of a drivers career out of the equation of that drivers legacy.

Not only were they given equal cars but Enzo loved Gilles and hated Jody.

Don't know how you figure GV was better than JV (a WDC), maybe you should prove it rather than just saying it eh?




errr, this one?

Just as it should be; I prefer to watch motor racing rather than driver racing.

Accordingly, I am much pained by the restrictive regulations that prohibit proper technical innovation.

Quite so - my own experience exactly

A WDC is what all racers dream of. Its not different from golf Majors, grand slam Tennis, Gold Olympics e.t.c The only thing that makes the WDC less meritorious or F1 for that matter, is the fact that it's one of the few sports where all participants don't not compete on equal footing.

Personally more than winning the WDC..it is how drivers face off against their team mates which is the better measure of respective abilities.

You know, some people like to live in fantasy land. They always say" If " , for example " If there was no race fix scandal, Massa is Champion" " If we put Vettel in that Brawn, he had won the Championship" "If Alonso stayed in Mclaren, he is 4-time World Champion"
But on the contrary , the world just admires the fact!!!

Stirling Moss is revered because of his all round talents. It wasn't just his f1 results that made him great, he was seen as the best all-round driver of his era - performances at le mans, mille miglia and sports car racing in general. But on the pure facts, he didn't achieve the feat of becoming f1 champion. 50 or so years down the line and young f1 fans will see/read that the likes of fangio, hawthorne, ascari, etc were all world champions, they won't necessarily think of stirling moss.

However, it does rather depend on how you want to view achievement - failing to be an f1 wdc or the fact that he won in everything he raced in during his career.

The simple fact of it is that being a wdc gives you entry into an exclusive club. I doubt many fans will remember that Jim Clark drove for a team that were more than dominant during his title winning years and across that particular decade; they remember him because he was a 2x world champion.

Those lucky enough to have seen great drivers who didn't win the title, but who won fans admiration, are remembered by those around at the time - anyone born after those years see the history books and find the name of the world champion in that particular year. Thus, being able to say you were a world champion is vitally important. If it wasn't, why have someone crowned wdc at the end of each year...?

There is such a thing as "expert opinion" which is admissible as evidence.

However, what evidence is there to the contrary? Nothing. Other than a semi-arbitrary ranking which takes no account of differing cars, conditions, problems, backmarkers or even how each position relates to each other position. In the 1950s a second and a fourth were worth more than a win and a retirement; in the 1960s they were not; in the 2000s they were again.

A world championship point is not evidence. If it is, show me one. What does it look like? What colour is it? Does it taste nice? Expert opinion however IS evidence. And indeed better evidence than a world championship ranking, because of its arbitrary nature.

Anyone who seriously considers Jenson Button to be better than Moss, or who considers that Lewis Hamilton somehow morphs into a better driver than he is because of a rainshower somewhere in Brazil happening 30 seconds earlier than it could have, or that Eddie Irvine would be one of the best drivers of all time if a Ferrari mechanic had not forgotten a wheelnut, is unwilling to think for themselves, and just follows what other people tell them to think.

WDC is, since 1950, cetrainly the ultimate goal all the drivers strive to achieve.
As I firmly believe that there's no such thing as luck, I must conclude that every WDC was won on merit and also lost on merit (taking into account the driver-car-team combination in each case).

Taking the above two premises into account, I must conclude that yes, absolutely, a WDC sets a drive apart from his non-WDC peers....but only after their careers end.

Of course, 2 outside factors can and one of them often, at least in the past, influenced the outcomes: the first one is the possibility of injury/death that cut short many a career in the era when motor racing was far less save than today and the other one is the possibility of race/championship fixing. Motor racing is not a sport with a long and rich history of cheating in the sense some other sports are but Piquet's Singapore feat showed us that such things happened in reality and there's no way to know how many times (I have my doubts, of course).

However, there are two cases that I, a brutally realistic cynic by nature, cannot stomach: those are the Stirling Moss (less) and Gilles Villeneuve (far more) myths. While the first one may bear some factuality (but there's no excuse for the 1958 season), the second one is completely fabricated and based on silly emotions much more than on any facts.

http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showtopic=14397

"In Formula Atlantic Villeneuve was just incredible. He was capable of performing feats that few could imagine much [less] replicate. He was clearly a stand-out and a man possessed of talent that even the blind could see. When I saw him in the 1975 & 1976 seasons I expected him to be either dead soon or to become World Championship. Only Keke Rosberg was remotely in the same category and the only one besides Villeneuve that truly impressed me with his driving skills.
These statistcs that everyone keeps quoting are just sheer, utter nonsense. They no more capture the essence of the man than a paint-by-number set allows you to appreciate a Degas or a Van Gogh. So many of you are missing the entire point of why Villeneuve still holds sway over so many of us normally rational people who are almost fanatical in this seeming irrational belief about Villeneuve's talent. In action, live, on the track, he was just that different from the rest. Neither Prost and certainly not Senna da Silva ever remotely impressed me in the way Villeneuve did. Neither can Prost nor Senna da Silva remotely hold a candle to Villeneuve or Rosberg in my book. No doubt they were good, but not in the same magical way Villeneuve was.
... the feeling I get is that many have no idea about [what] real racing is all about. It isn't all this silliness about wins or statistics, it is that real magic that happens in a racing machine on a track."
Don Capps, 2001.

A WDC is about more than just the driver. There are factors upon factors upon factors. This time last year Button was hardly any better than Heidfeld. Now one is a WDC and one is a test driver. In 50 years time some kid might see Buttons name in a book, but I have more than that, and I can use my eyes and my critical faculties to understand whats really going on.

Thats not to say JBs WDC was handed to him on a plate. He played the cards he was dealt, but they aren't all dealt the same cards. That is part of the appeal, after all, its what makes F1 more complicated and confusing than other sports. If you can't be bothered to understand it, why bother watching it.

While the WDC is the main aim for most drivers, it's not the be all and end all to a career. There are many other ways that a driver can achieve during a career, which is why the likes of Stirling Moss and Gilles Villeneuve are regarded as greats. The suggestion that Sirling Moss won't be remembered in 50 years is quite laughable.

Yet the WDC cannot be dismissed out of hand just because it is not the absoulte measure of a driver. It is a valuable part of a driver's lagacy. But those who have not achieved it have other ways to form a legacy.

Nothing... everything.

That's clearly not correct as RB has proven many times.

The goal for each driver is to be a Word Champion. At least at some point of their career they dream about it. That basically mean that if you do not get a WDC you have failed.
There might be mitigating circumstances, bad luck, bad teams, whatever, but in the end they failed and that affects their legacy big time.

Well for starters Gilles was exceptional in the wet whilst JV was a bit useless

Yes thats very important

I think, up until 1980 (arbitrary dating, admittedly), winning races was as if not more important than the Championship. As more money and more prestige was added into racing, Championships became much more important. Your ciggie co could say "Joe Smoe, WDC," and our guy is the World Champion. It used to be that is meant something that you won Monaco or Monza. It is often just a point race for the drivers so they can get those valuable points, especially if they get winners points.

After Jody won, Gilles said that winning the Championship was the best thing and the only thing to want to do. I think some times a champion driver may have their best year not when they won. Keke confirmed his greatness in 1983 by his great drives in the FW08 against the turbos. Mario was great in 1977.

WDCs give statistical weight. Soul stirring drives may not have any statistical weight, but mean something to us punters.

All of these comparisons are interesting but bring up the same personal opinions and preferences time after time. A lot of what people think of, for instance, Stirling Moss is based on what they have read or other people's opinions that actually saw him race. How many people on this forum can actually claim to have seen him?

So the successful drivers from yesteryear are deified and then we get the current crop of drivers, such as Fernando Alonso and michael Schumacher who have achieved great results and multiple titles. Again we all get subjective. How can we really determine whether Alonso's 2005 Renault was a better car in comparison to the rest of the field than his 2006 version? How can we really judge whether Schumacher's 5 titles for Ferrari were achieved because he had the whip hand over his teammate and a vastly superior car?

it's all about maximising the opportunities that you are given. Keke Rosberg, Mario Andretti, Denny Hulme, Jenson Button et al had one opportunity to win the title because of a million different variables. they did it. Well done. Drivers like Eddie Irvine, Jacky Ickx, Clay Regazzoni, Carlos Reutemann, Felipe Massa, had one and didn't achieve it. The only way they can truly be judged is on results, everything else is subjective.

For what it's worth, Rene Arnoux was the greatest driver ever.

The Gilles and Jacques comparisons are humorous....to be honest.

There is no doubt that anyone who watched G.Villeneuve will vouch that he was, quite simply, one of the most phenomenal talents ever to sit in an F1 car. Circumstances prevented him from being World Champion and, don't forget, in 1979 it was only his 2nd full season in Formula 1. Being runner-up to Jody was nothing to sneer at. Then when you look at what he achieved in absolute shitbox Ferrari's in 80/81....there simply is no doubt about his status.

Not one other driver would have put that 126CK on the front row at Monaco (of all places!!) and then run at the front and ultimately win the race. Phenomenal does not even start to describe it.

As for Jacques, I don't think he was as great as his father but, in his own right, he was a great racer. Far too much of J.Villeneuve is focused on 2004 onwards and people tend to forget that he was great in his first 2 years of F1 (and won the WDC against M.Schumacher) and phenomenal in 98-01 in cars that were comparable with his fathers. Anyone doubting JV's ability should just look at the 2000 season....as a start. Add his IndyCar achievements and he was, quite simply, one of the very best drivers of the last 15 years. His father would have been very proud.

The World Championship is very important, very special. However it does not start and stop with that. Never has and never will. Not for a real racefan anyway. If your purely into stats, go watch cricket.

Righteo.

Coulthard, Barrichello and Frentzen....to start with....say Hi...

It means a great deal historically. When publications/websites list the hall of fame drivers it is generally WDC's - even the OS lists them that way. They are accredited in the eyes of future generations who look up the information. You will have to dig a little deeper to find out about Giles, despite his incredible driving, etc....

Perhaps it is most meaningful to those who do not follow motosport. If WDCs enter other events, sporting or not, they are presented to the world as a "world champion formula one driver" (see JV at the recent Olympics). When they are invited to attend functions or placed in advertisements, it is easy enough to simply mention they are a WCF1 driver and it gives them instant credit. This is true even if those watching and listening have never watched a F1 race in their lives. They can still appreciate what it must mean to be a champion of the sport. For example, I cannot abide golf and have never seen any golfer in actual play - but I know Tiger Woods is a champion and so he has instant credit when I see him in an advertisement, etc.