How is a title won?

[CookinFlat6]

We are in the end of a season where this question is perfectly acceptable to ask.

On the one hand, you have Hamilton who has accumulated more wins than Rosberg,
so one would assume he is the worthy candidate for the WDC.

On the other hand, you have Rosberg, who is still mathematically in the running for
the WDC, if all the stars in the universe are aligned with the star on his car.

Both would consider themselves worthy of the championship, regardless of how; but,
as the poll asks, is winning the title at the last race, as Rosberg can possibly do, just as
valid as winning it based on having been more successful all season long, like Hamilton?

I suppose the bottom line and only line is "who scored the most points over the season"

Look at Keke Roseberg championship year, he won only 1 race, but he was consistent high finishing in most races all year. Sound familiar

I think it's a case of perspective. People see it as all riding on the last race ( if it's gone to the wire) because that is the final nail in the coffin, or hand on the trophy, depending how that race goes for you.

But in actual fact the race could be said just as easily to have pivoted around an action earlier in the year. A clumsy overtake and loss of points, a wrong tyre call , a spin out. That could be the thing that actually looses the title. People tend to remember the errors and dramas that occur towards the end of the season and forget the earlier ones.

Best way to win the title is to score as many points, be as consistent as possible all through the season.

Hey where's the poll?

A title can't be won in one race.
A title can be lost in one race.
A driver has to be in a position to win a title in the last race in order to win it.

So if a driver is constant enough to be in a situation to win a title at the end of the season it generally means they drove well. It doesn't mean that a driver winning from that position earned the title.

In 2010, there were four drivers able to mathematically able to win a championship at the last race of the season. The fact that four of them could win it certainly didn't mean that they all deserved it. If you "win" something and the only way for you to win is to have another driver fail through some type of extraneous circumstance then IMO that's a benefactor, not a winner of a championship.

What you are not taking into account Sagi, in your machinations is the fact that the Mercedes is such a dominant car, that it allows for mistakes to be made or mechanical issues to be encountered and still award the driver making those mistakes 15 or 18 points. The situation was no different at Red Bull for a few years. Webber always finished 2nd or 3rd int he season because of the power in that car. Barichello saw the same, affect him in 2009. What's clear is that Rosberg is outwardly a better driver than both Webber and Barichello when compared to their teammates to be able to put himself in a position that he's still close enough to be a benefactor.

So in effect, what we have this season is one driver earning a title because he's year in and year out shown that he is consistently ranked amongst the best drivers in the sport (regardless of the car he's driven) and doing exactly what his fans anticipated and the other driver having such an overpowering car, is just able to outscore any other driver on the grid bar his teammate. If you didn't become aware of this effect in Sochi, then I am unable to explain it any better than that and I doubt anyone else could.

Also, to the casual observer the title decided in the last race by a point is sometimes wrongly thought of as if it was a tennis tie break, when instead its generally due to the strategy over the final hurdle and as RC said, 1 point more than the others is the important metric

Also its only at this stage that incidents can truly be said to have made a difference, although previous ones will have contributed

simply because, any incident during the season will affect dynamically all the other players and will be discounted overall. So when Massa says it was the pitstop refuelling Ferrari fiasco that caused him the title, its complete straw grasping as all the other competitors discounted the incident and adjusted towards winning. So I think its not meaningful to say an incident in the past, at least a race before, after which the others had a chance to consider and discount it has any bearing beyond a mere contibution.

Pivotal moments, when some one loses heart or momentum or gains confidence etc etc are different
IMHO

Its a difficult one to answer.

This year, because Our Lewis is in a strong position, Id rather he won it much sooner than the last race.

If its a year when none of my fave drivers are in contention, then I want it to go down to the last corner of the last race....

As a newby, I think the title should be won when won, like Mercedes two races ago.
Don't think it's fair to make one race(the last one) more valuable then the first 18.
Although, I understand why they do(did?) it.

Have you read these replies? What do you think? they ALL address your supposed curiosity for opinions

You seem to be canvasing for a diffrent set of opinions or a specific one, maybe start with telling us how you feel about these replies

[What's Burning?]

I actually think that the 2009 title was won convincingly in the first half of the year. Such was the dominance of the car. The problem of not winning every other race wasn't a problem with Button it was a problem with Brawn running the team on a shoestring budget and relying on the monster design to get through the second part of the season when the Ferrari and McLaren cars caught up. It was also a case of Button coming in close to Barichello when Button didn't win, but there was plenty of good competition early on and it was the genesis of the Newey design that led Vettel to four championships.

So there really is no comparison from 2009 to 2009, the car this year is just on another planet compared to the rest of the grid. Like the 2011 and 2013 Red Bull machines. The RB01 was just part of the crowd after the mid season.

[CookinFlat6]

I am not sure about the shoestring theory of Brawn in the second half. They didnt have the money to maintain their 2 sec advantage as the others caught up, but they were still the fastest team at the end of the year. They started the season having spent a record amount of money on development.

It was Button who made the car look bad by collapsing in his results. exactly the same thing as the slump at McLaren in 2012. Whilst Button was saying 'how can this car be so bad' Barrichello was qualifying on the front row and winning races till the end of the year. He was very unlucky with accidents or would have won the WDC. He qualified on the front row while Button qualified several places behind and was unlucky in the race alwing Button to mitigate his collapse in form.

Barichello spent the first half of the season maoning about his brakes, and once they were changed he beat Button for the remainder of the year, again - due to bad luck in races, not by much on paper, but his speed was there by his regular attendance on the front row

[sagi58]

Worthiness has been called subjective; but the bottom line is that the driver with the most points at the end of the season is worthy of being called champion...

To the poll itself, I would rather see no bells and whistles at the last race and preferably there are still 3 or 4 drivers in the hunt come the last race, a la 2010.

I guess, if you're looking at the stats, the answers are always cut and dried (i.e., most points);
but, as fans with preferred favourites, it's understandable to be subjective and to not accept
that as the only measure of a "worthy" champ.

MOA, where do you think Ecclestone came up with this double-point last race thing??

[sagi58]

Have you read these replies? What do you think? they ALL address your supposed curiosity for opinions

You seem to be canvasing for a diffrent set of opinions or a specific one, maybe start with telling us how you feel about these replies

Actually, I read each and every one of them!! Unfortunately,
for those who were interested in responding to this thread,
their replies have been obscured.

In the post, to which you refer, I felt it necessary to reiterate
my own stance for the benefit of those who doubt my curiousity.

[What's Burning?]

Actually, I read each and every one of them!! Unfortunately,
for those who were interested in responding to this thread,
their replies have been obscured.

They're not obscure now that they've been highlighted... I'd love to read how your opinion has been further cemented or perhaps even swayed or how it's helped you to understand your own points of views. Since you couldn't exactly articulate them before, perhaps now withe the feedback from other members, you're better able to express your own points of views and perhaps elaborate on them.

It's a GP weekend, we've got time.

[myownalias]

Worthiness has been called subjective; but the bottom line is that the driver with the most points at the end of the season is worthy of being called champion...

To the poll itself, I would rather see no bells and whistles at the last race and preferably there are still 3 or 4 drivers in the hunt come the last race, a la 2010.

I guess, if you're looking at the stats, the answers are always cut and dried (i.e., most points);
but, as fans with preferred favourites, it's understandable to be subjective and to not accept
that as the only measure of a "worthy" champ.

I guess I don't see it that way, I have my favorite drivers, but I am more of a general F1 fan than a die hard driver/team fan, so I see it differently, I'd like to see a multi-driver battle for the title, preferably from multiple teams. An intra-tream title battle doesn't hold the same allure for me.

MOA, where do you think Ecclestone came up with this double-point last race thing??

Who knows? Bernie seems to dream up stupid idea after stupid idea, I have said for a long time now that he needs to be replaced, bring in someone younger.

[sagi58]

... I'd love to read how your opinion has been further cemented or perhaps even swayed or how it's helped you to understand your own points of views...

My opinion has been strengthened by the honesty in the comments from some members,
which I quite appreciate.

I think RC said it best,

I think it's a case of perspective...depending how that race goes for you...

I like Jabber's example that it's not just about the wins,

I suppose the bottom line and only line is "who scored the most points over the season"

Look at Keke Roseberg championship year, he won only 1 race, but he was consistent high finishing in most races all year. Sound familiar

Your own juxtaposition summarizes the argument well,

A title can't be won in one race.
A title can be lost in one race...

I believe that all incidents which cause any sort of loss of points / DNFs are important, regardless of timing,

...its only at this stage that incidents can truly be said to have made a difference, although previous ones will have contributed...

Again, the honesty is welcome,

...If its a year when none of my fave drivers are in contention, then I want it to go down to the last corner of the last race....

Completely agree that this double-points scheme is ridiculous,

...Don't think it's fair to make one race(the last one) more valuable then the first 18...

Finally, I accept that regardless of the subjectivity we bring to anything, at the end of the day, we write the rules and if we don't like them, we can write them again. Until that day,

...the bottom line is that the driver with the most points at the end of the season is worthy of being called champion...

[CookinFlat6]

Ok so the first round of opinions you received cover all your curiosities

Is it worthy in last race = answer type a, if he gets the points he is worthy, type b -its never won on a single incident, type c - its more exciting if there a few drivers at the last race still competing. Bonus points - a,b,c are not mutually exclusive

the second round of curiosities appear similar, if not I would be happy to develop a specific avenue or point

Do you have a conclusion, or can we look into the further curiosity?

[sagi58]

...Do you have a conclusion, or can we look into the further curiosity?

If your favourite driver/team is in contention, then it all depends on who is about to wins the title(s).
If you don't have a favourite driver/team in contention, you want to see as many fighting for the title(s) as possible.

The subjectivity of that first conclusion sits well with me, since I'm not about the stats.

[CookinFlat6]

So you werent sure before, but now your curiosity is satisfied that the following is true for fans of F1 and pretty much every single sport out there;

When we have our favourite involved we want them to win
When we dont have a favourite (most likely the first time we ever watch) then we want to see competition from as many players as possible right up to the line
Worthiness is generally when you do what the rules say you have to do
There are a few exceptions which are recognized as exceptions because many people from different places are saying it is an exception and that the rules did not produce the worthy winner

Do you agree therefore that winning within the rules on the last lap has nothing to do with worthiness as defined above?

[sagi58]

...Do you agree therefore that winning within the rules on the last lap has nothing to do with worthiness as defined above?

More to the point, do you?

[Roth]

I am not sure about the shoestring theory of Brawn in the second half. They didnt have the money to maintain their 2 sec advantage as the others caught up, but they were still the fastest team at the end of the year. They started the season having spent a record amount of money on development.

It was Button who made the car look bad by collapsing in his results. exactly the same thing as the slump at McLaren in 2012. Whilst Button was saying 'how can this car be so bad' Barrichello was qualifying on the front row and winning races till the end of the year. He was very unlucky with accidents or would have won the WDC. He qualified on the front row while Button qualified several places behind and was unlucky in the race alwing Button to mitigate his collapse in form.

Barichello spent the first half of the season maoning about his brakes, and once they were changed he beat Button for the remainder of the year, again - due to bad luck in races, not by much on paper, but his speed was there by his regular attendance on the front row

There's so much factually and contextually wrong with this, I don't know where to start.

[CookinFlat6]

Thats rather convenienet then, isnt it,

[What's Burning?]

It was bound to happen, a Cookin', Sagi and Roth thread. I see what ya'all doing... It's all a ploy to confuse me. Do I move it to the cookie/Sagi thread or to the cookie/Roth thread. Pretty sneaky sis.