islamatron wrote:
No, islamatron, that does not fly. Please remember, no matter how strongly you feel about a point, your belief does not constitute "proof." The winners in the instances you mention above still were those who scored the MOST POINTS in their best finishes -- NOT the most wins. Yes, it was most points in a sub-group of races, THAT is true, but the WDC was the driver who scored the most points -- their best FINISHES, not wins.
To clarify, rather than just rant, Please read you own "proof":
Only the best six scores from the first seven races and the best five scores from the remaining six races counted towards the championship
"best six scores" NOT "wins;" "best five scores" NOT "wins."
To cite some historical "proof" that POINTS counted, take 1961. Phil Hill, Wolfgang von Trips and Sterling Moss each won 2 GPs that year. Hill won the WDC on the basis of scoring the MOST POINTS in his best 5 finishes. Moss finished third, tied with Dan Gurney - who won NO races at all - again on the basis of points, not wins. Most telling,
Giancarlo Baghetti won one race, but finished behind four drivers who won no races at all -- because of points.
In fact, that historical result refutes your statement
That is proof that for a long time F1 was more about Wins than consistancy
. In fact, the opposite was true. Moss won two races, Gurney none, but they finished tied, because of Gurney's consistency. Baghetti won a race; Bruce Mclaren, Jimmy Clark, Dan Gurney, and Richie Ginther won NO races, but finished ahead of Baghetti,
because THEY WERE REWARDED FOR CONSISTENCY.
Do you accept my "proof"? Or are you still too closed-minded to see reality? Try 1964 when Clark won three races, Surtees two -- and Surtees was WDC because of TOTAL POINTS. He won fewer races -- and the WDC -- because he scored more points, was more consistent, than Clark.
Enzo Ferrari was a great man. But he was not a good man. -- Phil Hill
