Re: JPM to McLaren for 05

"David Betts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
> >Jack Brabham 14.....Emerson Fittipaldi 14.....Graham Hill 14
> >Alberto Ascari 13..........David Coulthard 13*
> Pretty good company in my book. Interestingly, the other four
    won nine championships between them.
>
> Just goes to show what a nonsense championships really are.

David, I see you stating this similar opinion on the
WDC often.  Normally it gets little or no response,
so you do not have a good chance to expand on it.
I clearly understand you have every right to state your
opinion and to try to win converts here and elsewhere.

If I understand you correctly, you like to think of the
GP races as a continuous, ever flowing, tapestry.
702 equal races, each important solely by itself.
No breaking it into 54 years, or eras.  And in fact
you have often seemed to think other races are
just as important (the non-championship ones).

OK, I can understand and respect that, BUT
you do understand that does not fit with human
nature or the way business & finances work,
don't you?
Mankind likes to break memories down into
some sort of organized blocks.  We like to
some structure to our planning, organizing,
and work with a greater goal in mind than just
a 1 1/2 hour (or 3 hour) event.
So in general most sports do work toward a
yearly championship.
Also lining up sponsors and financial commitments
needs (normally!) a promise of more than one race.,
as does such things as driver contracts and design
and construction schedules.
And obviously the race tracks also find it best to
work on building a once a year spectator return.
So, carry on with your opinion, but the WDC
is likely to stay.

Personally, while I value the memories of
some individual races, I like the point of
yearly WDCs, and value the year long
campaign for the big overall goal.

Then I have several times seen you mention a
'compromise' or 'fallback position', that the WDC
would be okay if it is given to the person who
wins the most races.  Would I be safe to assume
that in the event of a tie for number of wins, you
would be willing to use number of 2nds as
tie-breakers (etc. etc)?
I am really trying to be fair and not put words
in your mouth.

So if I am understanding your point
correctly, you think:
hop - skipping - listing some changes
Prost should have been WDC in 1984?
Prost    "         "      "      WDC in 1983?
Pironi                             WDC in 1982?
Andretti                          WDC in 1977?

And further hop skipping you agree with the wins of:
G. Hill properly won in 1962,
P. Hill       "       "       in 1961,
Brabham                  in 1960,
Brabham                  in 1959?
Am I understanding your views?