Grand Prix Rejects

With the season coming to a close the inevitable annual accusations of the latest champion not being worthy is once again upon us (assuming Button dosen't totally screw it up). Pointless whineing? Sour grapes? Who cares, this is F1 Rejects. I say not only can we dismiss every champion, but it is our duty to do so! Let's start off with the 3 most recent ones.

2009 Button (assumed). Gifted the best car by a mile at the start of the season, as soon as everyone else got their act together fell back rapidly and has spent the last half of the season mooching around the minor points paying positions. Talk about stumbleing across the line.

2008 Hamilton. It sure was nice of McLaren to hand him arguably the best car in the field for his second season and a nice compliant teammate. To hell with those that overcome adversity, fighting and struggling to reach the top. Much better to just have it all handed to you!

2007 Raikonnen. I hope McLaren wrapped the WDC up with a nice bow when they gave it to Kimi. It just goes to show, if you can't win it under your own steam just hang around and hope your rivals self-destruct.

Anyone want to take on Fangio?

1999 Hakkinen. Apart from being a great driver which I admire, 1999 was a year when he could barely keep the car on the track, he was only saved by Schumacher's crash and Irvine's incompetence.

1994 Schumacher. Apart from his almost complete dominance that year, which was overshadowed by two deaths, the Benneton proved to be barely legal (or completely illegal) car. Also that move on Hill in Adelaide was questionable...

1997 Villeneuve. Oh come on, Villeneuve a champion? It must have been an alternative reality . Either way, I believe his title was more or less deserved, he had the best car in the field... yet he spent another ten years in F1 where he was constantly proving himself to be a joke and a champ by coincidence...

A true masterpiece for this thread:

1961 Hill. Come on, winning only because your main rival dies. If that's not unworthy and reject-like then I don't know what is.

Klon wrote:A true masterpiece for this thread:

1961 Hill. Come on, winning only because your main rival dies. If that's not unworthy and reject-like then I don't know what is.

In the same spirit:
1982 Rosberg: Come on, only won one race during the season, but all the main rivals were either killed or injured...

*Prepares for an assortment of items being thrown at him*

1976 Hunt - Only won thanks to Lauda's near-death shunt in Germany, and then not risking his life again in the torrential rain at Fuji.
1992 Mansell - Won because of the car, not the driver. Patrese was in trail whenever the car didn't pack in, and he wasn't exactly a superstar either.

LukeB wrote: I say not only can we dismiss every champion, but it is our duty to do so!

Continuing back from 2007, then...

2006 Alonso - Only won because of Schumi's engine going south in Japan.
2005 Alonso - Had Raikkonen's McLaren an ounce of reliability, he would've won it easily.
2004 Schumacher - Do I really need to explain this one? When your nearest rival is your teammate and he isn't allowed in the same post code as you, you can really only lose by doing it deliberately.

LukeB wrote:2004 Schumacher - Do I really need to explain this one? When your nearest rival is your teammate and he isn't allowed in the same post code as you, you can really only lose by doing it deliberately.

Coyppasta for 2002.

1992: Nigel Mansell. Big deal, winning the title in a car over one or two seconds better than the rest...

1956 Fangio - Do you really deserve it if your closest rival gives up his car so you can win?

1979 Scheckter - How can a South African win a World Championship? Shouldn't be allowed.

shinji wrote:1979 Scheckter - How can a South African win a World Championship? Shouldn't be allowed.

2003 Schumacher - Clearly bribed his brother to take out Barrichello and Raikkonen at the German GP.
2002 Schumacher - See also: 2004 Schumacher.
2001 Schumacher - Coulthard became his rival by default after Mika never really got going. And when that happens, how can you really lose?

2009 button:

lucky dog!
Barrichello had a lot of problems, like 4 stalls (3 in start and 1 in pit) and Vettel/Webber had problems with your motors. Button never had a single problem!!!

2005 Alonso: A easily title!

Kimi and Montoya had engine failures in every race, if not, he's just run for finish in second or third. Had total priority on team, fisico cant had conditions for fight with him and finally, renault easily put 0.5/1 seconds in the rest of 16 cars of grid.

2001/2002/2004 schumacher titles:

Obvious reasons.

Fangio in the year that Peter Collins gave him his car.

Any year that Jim Clark was racing, but didn't win it because of his car's reliability.

Denny Hulme? Simply because I don't know anything about the guy except his name and nationality.

1989 Prost. He pulled Senna to a stop at Suzuka. Later he said that it was done on purpose. I'm not going to comment the next year's move that Senna did...

lostpin wrote:1988 Prost. He pulled Senna to a stop at Suzuka. Later he said that it was done on purpose. I'm not going to comment the next year's move that Senna did...

You meant 1989, right?

Nuppiz wrote:

lostpin wrote:1988 Prost. He pulled Senna to a stop at Suzuka. Later he said that it was done on purpose. I'm not going to comment the next year's move that Senna did...

You meant 1989, right?

Ups, sorry, my mistake. I'll change the post..

LukeB wrote:2009 Button (assumed). Gifted the best car by a mile at the start of the season, as soon as everyone else got their act together fell back rapidly and has spent the last half of the season mooching around the minor points paying positions. Talk about stumbleing across the line.

You're making a huge assumption there: that the Brawn is still the best car on the grid. And depending upon the circuit, it is or it isn't.

And Button poor form in Britain, Germany and Hungary was experienced by Barrichello as well. It was due to an upgrade that put the team back rather than forward; as for Valencia, he got squeezed at the start and rather wisely decided to back off ather than risk going into the first corner without a front wing.

Boo! This thread isn't the place for balanced analysis, it's for mindless and if need be unfair critisism of people with much more talent then you or I for having the audacity to be succesful.

Mansell, in 1992? My book says FW-14B was the WDC. Loved it and supported him all the way. Loved it when Hill and Villeneuve were WDCs as well. Always support the little guy!

Hakkinen 1998 - Not only did he have by far the best car in the field, his team-mate gifted him the first race and therefore the momentum.

1996 Hill. I might be bashed by writing this, but I think the only reason that Hill won that year was the Ferrari's total inferiority...

Any Williams-Champ since Rosberg.

Piquet, Mansell, Hill, Prost and Villeneuve all won solely on the fact that their car was wtfpwnage compared to the rest of the field.
The only reason I don't add Rosberg to the fray is because he didn't have the best car, he won the title with reliability when reliability was the word of the year.

2008 Hamilton Had the absolutely best car in the grid, a team-mate who bent over backwards for him and STILL he nearly choked and lost it like the year before. I mean, can you call yourself a deserving champion when a midfielder's gamble clinched the title for you? Had glock managed to keep it together for one more corner...

Alonso 2005: He was quick and had a good car I admit it. But he won the title mainly thanks to the torrid reliability of the McLarens.

Senna 1990 for crashing Prost's Ferrari off in Suzuka.

Hamilton 2008, isn't it nice to be a contractual #1 driver in the team?

All of Schumi's Titles barring 2000, because he did something questionable in I think all of his championship years save 2000...

Cynon wrote:All of Schumi's Titles barring 2000, because he did something questionable in I think all of his championship years save 2000...

So what you're saying is: not doing anything questionable was Schumi's version of a Y2K glitch..?

No, we're saying nearly every F1 champion since the founding of the sport was unworthy. Keep up!

That I do realize, but I was asking a different question.

I nominate everyone for the unfair advantage of having more points than everyone else.

fjackdaw wrote:I nominate everyone for the unfair advantage of having more points than everyone else.

Except Senna in 1988 when he had less overall points than Prost.

Every year, beacuse clearly I'm far more deserving of it than any of that shower of corporate taxi drivers, and due to what can only be descibled as EEBUL FIA CONNSPIRRACCY I have yet to be crowned as WDC.

Warren Hughes wrote:Denny Hulme? Simply because I don't know anything about the guy except his name and nationality.

Had to look up to see when he was world champion, as I didn't believe he ever won it! Turns out it was in 1967...

I'd certainly say Villeneuve in 1997 when you consider his wins that year:

Brazil: Ran wide at the first corner, and would have been nowhere had it not been for the restart
Argentine: Panis and both Jordans were on for the win before hitting trouble, and Irvine chased him to the line in a much-inferior car.
Spain: His only undisputed truly worthy win of the year thanks to tyre preservation.
Britain: Hakkinen retired from the lead with a few laps to go
Hungary: Hill dropped back due to mechanical problems on the last lap
Austria: Hakkinen would have walked it had he not blown up early on, and Trulli might have picked up the pieces had it not been for his own engine issues.
Luxembourg (????): Both McLarens and Barrichello were ahead when they retired, and Schumi was also taken out early.

So many times that year I thought 'he was so lucky to win that one....'.

jonnyeol wrote:I'd certainly say Villeneuve in 1997 when you consider his wins that year:

Brazil: Ran wide at the first corner, and would have been nowhere had it not been for the restart
Argentine: Panis and both Jordans were on for the win before hitting trouble, and Irvine chased him to the line in a much-inferior car.
Spain: His only undisputed truly worthy win of the year thanks to tyre preservation.
Britain: Hakkinen retired from the lead with a few laps to go
Hungary: Hill dropped back due to mechanical problems on the last lap
Austria: Hakkinen would have walked it had he not blown up early on, and Trulli might have picked up the pieces had it not been for his own engine issues.
Luxembourg (????): Both McLarens and Barrichello were ahead when they retired, and Schumi was also taken out early.

So many times that year I thought 'he was so lucky to win that one....'.

Yeah, Villeneuve wasn't that great. I would have loved it if Panis won the 1997 championship.

Hamilton as well, he made far too many mistakes in 2008 and only won the title thanks to Massa's misfortunes, i.e. Hungary.

There are no unworthy champions as they scored more points then anyone else (with a few exceptions, although the point scoring systems are well know in advance... anyway Senna go more point worthy postions then Prost...). You might say they are questionable champions, but some of the things lists are stupid and as Murray Walker once said 'To finish first, first you have to finish...'

1984 Lauda - Half a point? That's too small a gap!

1986 Prost - He clearly sabotaged Williams tyres.

1981, '83 and '87 Piquet - How can Nelson Piquet Junior's dad win one Championship, let alone three!

SuperAguri wrote:There are no unworthy champions as they scored more points then anyone else (with a few exceptions, although the point scoring systems are well know in advance... anyway Senna go more point worthy postions then Prost...). You might say they are questionable champions, but some of the things lists are stupid and as Murray Walker once said 'To finish first, first you have to finish...'

This, my friend, is supposed to be a fun thread. Why so serious? *takes out knife*

Ok...I'm going there......

1970 Jochen Rindt this one is similar to Phil hill's only in reverse......I mean Seriously....Jacky Ickx finishes 4th at the USGP....Had he finished 2nd there, he would've at least tied......but no, I smell a rat.....



*Hides behind Turn 17 Wall*

1990 Senna - Win the championship by taking your rival out... yup, that's the mark of a worthy champion, indeed.
1989 Prost - See: 1990.

Fitch wrote:Ok...I'm going there......

1970 Jochen Rindt this one is similar to Phil hill's only in reverse......I mean Seriously....Jacky Ickx finishes 4th at the USGP....Had he finished 2nd there, he would've at least tied......but no, I smell a rat.....



*Hides behind Turn 17 Wall*

He will come back from the dead and strangle you to death with his massive hands.

Fitch wrote:Ok...I'm going there......

1970 Jochen Rindt this one is similar to Phil hill's only in reverse......I mean Seriously....Jacky Ickx finishes 4th at the USGP....Had he finished 2nd there, he would've at least tied......but no, I smell a rat.....



*Hides behind Turn 17 Wall*

Don't go there.

Anyway, Stewart and Fittipaldi because Rindt would have taken the next two championships if he had lived.

And Andretti because everyone knows Peterson was faster than him, but had to obey team orders.

Oh and all of Sennas and Schumi's championships, because both should have been banned for life for race fixing by causing deliberate accidents.