FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[What's Burning?]

For me a Champion isn't just about winning races. As a champion, I'd place Stirling Moss over all the current crop of drivers. That's not to say that some might not develop into the sort of champion he is. And, yes, as someone mentioned, he never won a WDC - but only because he decided he didn't want it on a bad stewards decision. For those of you who don't know, in the 1958 Hawthorn/Ferrari were penalised at the Portugal (I think?) GP. If SM had just said nothing, he was WDC for 1958. But, he went and spoke in favour of Ferrari, told the stewards that Ferrari hadn't broken the rules and got the stewards to reinstate Hawthorn/Ferrari. Hawthorn/Ferrari went on to beat SM by one point that year.

I'd like to understand what standards you use to rationalize the fact that you've just exalted onto an individual the mark of a real champion by putting sportsmanship above wining a championship, yet when a team does not apply those same moral standards to win a world championship as in the 1964 GT World Championship example I've given you it doesn't bother you.

I ask this because it's very clear that you come solely bearing hypocritical arguments simply to insidiously purport your views; Forza (down your throat) Ferrari!

[smokin]

What's all this real champion bullsh*t? everyone that has won a world drivers title is a real champion whether you like the driver or not!

For me a Champion isn't just about winning races. As a champion, I'd place Stirling Moss over all the current crop of drivers. That's not to say that some might not develop into the sort of champion he is. And, yes, as someone mentioned, he never won a WDC - but only because he decided he didn't want it on a bad stewards decision. For those of you who don't know, in the 1958 Hawthorn/Ferrari were penalised at the Portugal (I think?) GP. If SM had just said nothing, he was WDC for 1958. But, he went and spoke in favour of Ferrari, told the stewards that Ferrari hadn't broken the rules and got the stewards to reinstate Hawthorn/Ferrari. Hawthorn/Ferrari went on to beat SM by one point that year.

If you watch his recent interview, when he is asked about who is the better driver between Jenson and Lewis, he is complimentary to both drivers.

For me, he is a real champion.

That's rich, coming from someone who supports team orders which flagrantly break the rules. Are you expecting Fernando to stand up and and refuse to accept the championship if he wins by less than seven points?

[myownalias]

Moss is a real sportsman; I wouldn't agree he's a real champion! Most drivers these days would do whatever they can to get the win; even if that means cheating and lying!

Ruthlessness is one of a champions qualities, that doesn't always include lying or cheating but it's not precluded either.

Being ruthless is absolutely fine in my mind, I like hard racing but the lying to stewards to gets someone else demoted/disqualified is below the belt; as is manufacturing a race result; not so much team orders (even if they do irk me) but causing a deliberate accident like Schumacher has done in attempts to win the world championship.

[texasmr2]

No comment!

[Hammer278]

For me a Champion isn't just about winning races. As a champion, I'd place Stirling Moss over all the current crop of drivers. That's not to say that some might not develop into the sort of champion he is. And, yes, as someone mentioned, he never won a WDC - but only because he decided he didn't want it on a bad stewards decision. For those of you who don't know, in the 1958 Hawthorn/Ferrari were penalised at the Portugal (I think?) GP. If SM had just said nothing, he was WDC for 1958. But, he went and spoke in favour of Ferrari, told the stewards that Ferrari hadn't broken the rules and got the stewards to reinstate Hawthorn/Ferrari. Hawthorn/Ferrari went on to beat SM by one point that year.

I'd like to understand what standards you use to rationalize the fact that you've just exalted onto an individual the mark of a real champion by putting sportsmanship above wining a championship, yet when a team does not apply those same moral standards to win a world championship as in the 1964 GT World Championship example I've given you it doesn't bother you.

I ask this because it's very clear that you come solely bearing hypocritical arguments simply to insidiously purport your views; Forza (down your throat) Ferrari!

[spankyham]

What's all this real champion bullsh*t? everyone that has won a world drivers title is a real champion whether you like the driver or not!

For me a Champion isn't just about winning races. As a champion, I'd place Stirling Moss over all the current crop of drivers. That's not to say that some might not develop into the sort of champion he is. And, yes, as someone mentioned, he never won a WDC - but only because he decided he didn't want it on a bad stewards decision. For those of you who don't know, in the 1958 Hawthorn/Ferrari were penalised at the Portugal (I think?) GP. If SM had just said nothing, he was WDC for 1958. But, he went and spoke in favour of Ferrari, told the stewards that Ferrari hadn't broken the rules and got the stewards to reinstate Hawthorn/Ferrari. Hawthorn/Ferrari went on to beat SM by one point that year.

If you watch his recent interview, when he is asked about who is the better driver between Jenson and Lewis, he is complimentary to both drivers.

For me, he is a real champion.

That's rich, coming from someone who supports team orders which flagrantly break the rules. Are you expecting Fernando to stand up and and refuse to accept the championship if he wins by less than seven points?

We were punished for, what the race stewards saw as us breaking the rules. We didn't agree but we accepted our punishment. Exactly like Lewis was given a penalty for passing the safety car. He said he didn't remember doing it, but he also accepted his punishment. Things happen in races. I would no more expect Fernando to not accept the WDC that I would expect Lewis to not accept if his points from Valencia made the difference.

And me thinking that a rule is wrong in no way mitigates my right to have a view on who or what constitutes a champion. There was a rule that segregated people in South Africa - fortunately a lot of people spoke up against that rule. Ends out their views on a bad rule weren't "rich".

[hounddub]

I have absolutley no idea where people on this forum get their "expert' opinions from. It's OK to show support for your favourite team or driver, but seriously, unless you are an inner sanctum employee of a top F1 team.....you have no idea what is really going on.....it's just purely speculative fun on this forum.

When it comes to Hamilton my personal opinion is that a driver with so little experience in Formula 1 (this is only his 3rd season) shows very little regard for the sport by making stupid inflamitory statements....and to be frank.....he's done it from day one and that's why so many are polarized by him as a person.

Respect is respect....some learn the hard way.....I suspect Lewis may soon begin to understand the concept. (and that's just my opinion)

[ivey]

I for myself, am pretty sure that Lewis has respect for Schumacher, because when he(schumi) came to the league then Hamilton said it's a special feeling to drive behind him even in free practice before the season, after all he's one of the greats. As many have said right here, it's probably misunderstood and misquoted by people. It's pretty clear that Schumacher does not have the car to win races this season so why should you have a special feeling when you know that you have a much better car.

[nish2280]

I think its just down to the wrong choice of words. I'm sure if you asked him today he would say its great to race against him but unfortunately he doesnt have the right car to be competitive.

[What's Burning?]

And me thinking that a rule is wrong in no way mitigates my right to have a view on who or what constitutes a champion. There was a rule that segregated people in South Africa - fortunately a lot of people spoke up against that rule.

But since you're wearing red shades, it's difficult for you to see the instances when Ferrari plays the role of the Republic of South Africa.

You're certainly allowed to have your own view on who or what constitutes a champion... what you're not allowed is to come enforcing those double standards upon everyone else, and then passive/aggressively attacking when they don't agree with you.

[kerc]

I'm sure Michael is very aware that he is losing much of the respect he once had; he should have stayed away; his legacy is hanging in the balance right now!

He's like the multiple crown champ boxer that retires in full glory and then decides to come back to the ring, just to be beaten to a pulp by everyone and retiring in shame.

[texasmr2]

His record speaks for it's self thank you very much!

[smokin]

What's all this real champion bullsh*t? everyone that has won a world drivers title is a real champion whether you like the driver or not!

For me a Champion isn't just about winning races. As a champion, I'd place Stirling Moss over all the current crop of drivers. That's not to say that some might not develop into the sort of champion he is. And, yes, as someone mentioned, he never won a WDC - but only because he decided he didn't want it on a bad stewards decision. For those of you who don't know, in the 1958 Hawthorn/Ferrari were penalised at the Portugal (I think?) GP. If SM had just said nothing, he was WDC for 1958. But, he went and spoke in favour of Ferrari, told the stewards that Ferrari hadn't broken the rules and got the stewards to reinstate Hawthorn/Ferrari. Hawthorn/Ferrari went on to beat SM by one point that year.

If you watch his recent interview, when he is asked about who is the better driver between Jenson and Lewis, he is complimentary to both drivers.

For me, he is a real champion.

That's rich, coming from someone who supports team orders which flagrantly break the rules. Are you expecting Fernando to stand up and and refuse to accept the championship if he wins by less than seven points?

We were punished for, what the race stewards saw as us breaking the rules. We didn't agree but we accepted our punishment. Exactly like Lewis was given a penalty for passing the safety car. He said he didn't remember doing it, but he also accepted his punishment. Things happen in races. I would no more expect Fernando to not accept the WDC that I would expect Lewis to not accept if his points from Valencia made the difference.

And me thinking that a rule is wrong in no way mitigates my right to have a view on who or what constitutes a champion. There was a rule that segregated people in South Africa - fortunately a lot of people spoke up against that rule. Ends out their views on a bad rule weren't "rich".

You misunderstand, possibly deliberately, possibly not. You expound that a real champion upholds the rules, even if making sure that they are applied correctly disadvantages him or her. Ferrari broke the rules, as you alluded to by the mention of the stewards' punishment and this infringement was upheld by the WMSC. The rule is stupid, barely enforceable, but it is still a rule. Whether or not the rule is wrong, it is in force this season and I was highlighting your double standards in lauding Moss for going with his conscience while finding nothing wrong with rule-breaking by Ferrari.

To avoid a protracted argument based upon semantics, I must point out that I am completely in agreement with you on the subject of team orders. It is a bad rule. My comments relate to your apparent view that because a rule is against the ethos of Ferrari then it is not a valid rule and does not figure into whether or not it should be obeyed.

[What's Burning?]

it's because you don't have a pair of these.

[texasmr2]

it's because you don't have a pair of these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzINc8fTDhE