>>I've been advocating this system for ages. The plus point is that it's
>>*pure* - winning is everything, and the imperative isn't to tootle
>>around nursing the car but to go out and get ahead of people.
>As have I, with the caveat that I'd rather not have a championship
>atall. Stuck with it, of course, but it's a shame that it takes
>precedence over the individual races. Winning GPs is what it should be
>all about. I believe McLaren's corporate mission statement is
>something along the lines of 'to compete in and win every world
>championship GP'. Can't argue with that.
IMO, the way the whole thing should be looked at is, as 18 individual
races, which happen to also go towards a championship.
F1 is different to competitions like soccer. MU does not get a medal
or a cup every time they beat Liverpool, F1 drivers do.
So each race is it's own entity, while the result goes towards the end
of season tally. For further references, see : ATP tour, golf, etc...
>And as the championship is only there to add extra interest for the
>mass audience, that becomes a significant factor. Hard to believe, but
>there are actually people who lose interest in the remaining races
>once the championship is settled.
As i know, since day one the championship was there. Had it been only
brought in in the current commercial world of F1, then fair enough,
but it's been around for at least the "new era" and some of that was
spent with "sport" as it's main incentive.
>Personally, I can't take seriously a championship which Stirling and
>Gilles never won, yet MS has won however many times. Just goes to show
>how little it proves.
Shame on you. That's not a nice thing to say about Brabham and
Hill(P), or Jones and Scheckter. Now is it ? :-)
Giles was in the wrong car at the wrong time and when he could have
won it, his team mate got him.