[News]

News: Our new LIVEBAR is now up and running

[mollymorals]

mollymorals

mollymorals

Show mollymorals's last posts.

Show general stats for mollymorals.

• 
• Full Member
• Rep: +2/-17
• Posts: 181

I think so tbh.
Let's face it, this year's Honda is even more dominant than the '96 Williams.
Hill and Button are both hard triers and reasonably good car developers but as far as racers are concerned they're both distinctly average in F1 terms.
I can't be bothered to watch F1 anymore for at least a few more races. Ok so I'll be at Silverstone next month, but that's more for the social event than the actual racing anyway. I don't expect to watch anymore races on TV until Spa, by which time Button's wdc will have been made official.  :-\

[Sgt.Pepper]

Sgt.Pepper

Sgt.Pepper

Show Sgt.Pepper's last posts.

Show general stats for Sgt.Pepper.

• 
• Administrator
• Legendary Member
• Rep: +11/-3
• Posts: 2527

I think it's always difficult to know, i mean he's always had a rep for being a smooth driver who never had the right car, now he does he's showing what he can do. As with anybody that unexpectedly does well however, people will look to unpick his successes. If alonso had made the switch and was now at brawnda, would that also be an 'average' performance?

[Lewser]

Lewser

Lewser

Show Lewser's last posts.

Show general stats for Lewser.

• 
• Sr. Member
• Rep: +6/-28
• Posts: 382

Bit harsh there Ben

He has never had decent equipment till this season

You would have probably called Hakkinen crap because he didn't get a single win till what was it ? 98th race or something ?

F1 is all about the car, the driver just turns the wheel as we have seen this season with Hamilton but put Yuji Ide in Hamilton's 2007 and 2008 car or most of Schumacher's cars and he would have got podiums and wins

Button has not had the breaks till this season so how do we know how well he would have done in a Ferrari or McLaren in recent years ? we don't

[Disgrace]

Disgrace

Disgrace

Visit Disgrace's website.

Show Disgrace's last posts.

Show general stats for Disgrace.

• 
• Hero Member
• Rep: +5/-3
• Posts: 620
• The Disgrace

People forget 2007 when he generally starred in his RA107. He scored points in France with a strong drive, China with another very strong drive and in Monza when he battled with Rosberg's superior Williams for ages. Then there was his mega-Nurburgring lap where he went from God-knows to fourth and just behind Alonso before he caught that lake at turn one. His stock soared in 2007 for me and for Brundle too.

But then he was mediocre/invisible/couldn't be arsed last year as Rubens was in 2007 so it all evens out I suppose.

Button is strange, he either has a rare absolute shocker of a season (2008 and especially 2001) but generally they've all been really strong, especially 2004, 2006, 2007 and this year. He did out-score Trulli in 2002 (despite losing a podium on the last lap in Malaysia with a suspension issue) and still got the sack. Not to mention the fact that he raced from 19th to 6th on his debut in 2000 until his engine blew up too. The class has always been there, but it's also depended on whether he's been bothered. You have to say though, he's taken this chance with both hands and he's been absolutely flawless bar one lock-up during the Chinese race.

[Platen Glass]

Platen Glass

Platen Glass

Show Platen Glass's last posts.

Show general stats for Platen Glass.

• 
• Guru Member
• Rep: +16/-21
• Posts: 1496

The most average since Damon Hill? Definitely not. For a start there's Jacques Villeneuve the year after Damon. Or did you mean that because Villeneuve was so bad he wasn't even close to average and Button is nearer the average driver, albeit the other side? Interesting thought process, mollymorals, if a little harsh.

But anyway, regardless of how good you think Button is, he hasn't really put a foot wrong this year and has scored all the points available to him (the Red Bull was clearly better in the wet). So if you compare him with say Vettel this year, you might say Vettel is a more talented driver, but with mistakes and everything factored in, Button has done the better job so far.

So you might say that in terms of talent, Button isn't as great as some other champions, but he's been more consistent and had a better year so far than a lot of arguably more talented drivers.

And while Raikkonen was impressive at McLaren, the Ferrari version and 2007 champion does not look as good as Button does at the moment. Hamilton also put in a scrappy season last year so while he's probably more talented, his championship year wasn't as good as this year so far for Button.

[mollymorals]

mollymorals

mollymorals

Show mollymorals's last posts.

Show general stats for mollymorals.

• 
• Full Member
• Rep: +2/-17
• Posts: 181

The most average since Damon Hill? Definitely not. For a start there's Jacques Villeneuve the year after Damon.

Villeneuve was a better racer than Hill and was faster too. Jacques wasn't amazing but at his peak I would say he was worthy of 8.5/10 whereas Hill at his peak was 7.5/10.

But anyway, regardless of how good you think Button is, he hasn't really put a foot wrong this year and has scored all the points available to him (the Red Bull was clearly better in the wet). So if you compare him with say Vettel this year, you might say Vettel is a more talented driver, but with mistakes and everything factored in, Button has done the better job so far.

I agree that Button hasn't put a foot wrong so far this year. Fair play to him, he's driven a load of shitboxes for most of his career and now he's got a totally dominant car and he's making the most of his chance. He's the world champion-elect and I don't begrudge him his title, even though it makes for very dull viewing.
However, that doesn't alter the fact that he's simply a decent driver making hay whilst the sun shines. I think at least half the rest of the grid would be doing as well as he was if they were in his car.

So you might say that in terms of talent, Button isn't as great as some other champions, but he's been more consistent and had a better year so far than a lot of arguably more talented drivers.

He's been more consistent because he's had no real threat from anyone else and could afford to just take it relatively easy.

And while Raikkonen was impressive at McLaren, the Ferrari version and 2007 champion does not look as good as Button does at the moment. Hamilton also put in a scrappy season last year so while he's probably more talented, his championship year wasn't as good as this year so far for Button.

Raikkonen was pretty useless for much of 2007, I quite agree. But his performances in 2003-2005 were worthy of at least one world championship in that time, so it's a case of poetic justice that he got one in the end, albeit not during one of his better seasons.
As for Hamilton, much as I wanted Massa to beat him last year, one can't deny that they both had brilliant seasons and either of them would've been worthy winners. They fought hard in equally competitive cars.

So I stand fully by my statement: Button IS the most average world champion since Damon Hill.

[Oonga Boonga]

Oonga Boonga

Oonga Boonga

Show Oonga Boonga's last posts.

Show general stats for Oonga Boonga.

• 
• Hero Member
• Rep: +8/-5
• Posts: 529

Villeneuve was a better racer than Hill and was faster too. Jacques wasn't amazing but at his peak I would say he was worthy of 8.5/10 whereas Hill at his peak was 7.5/10.

I think JV and Hill were much closer than you are stating, with Hill actually being a tad better, but if they raced against each other in equal cars for 5 years, Hill would probably win 3 out of those 5 years, so it would be close in my view.

Whilst irrelevant to assessing who was the better driver, Hill at least was the far more likeable of the two. ;D

So I stand fully by my statement: Button IS the most average world champion since Damon Hill.

I use to think this sort of statement was worth making, but now I am of the view it is just too miserable a position to be banging on about, and that the worst a WDC should suffer at the fate of the fans is to be NOT talked about, rather than rubbished as the worst or one of the worst, etc etc.

[Lewser]

Lewser

Lewser

Show Lewser's last posts.

Show general stats for Lewser.

• 
• Sr. Member
• Rep: +6/-28
• Posts: 382

Its all about the car anyways

Last year Kubica was being hyped as the new Schumi this year he looks like the new Alex Yoong, has he got any worse as a driver ? no course not he just had a good car to drive and made the most of it, same with Hamilton now he is one of those monkeys at the back of the grid but has he got any worse as a driver ? no, again the car flattered him same way as it did Kubica and the same now with Button, did Button really drive worse in the BAR/Honda days than Kubica and Hamilton are doing now ? no

F1 is 95% the car and 5% the driver, no evidence at all that Button is an average driver

[Platen Glass]

Platen Glass

Platen Glass

Show Platen Glass's last posts.

Show general stats for Platen Glass.

• 
• Guru Member
• Rep: +16/-21
• Posts: 1496

Villeneuve was a better racer than Hill and was faster too. Jacques wasn't amazing but at his peak I would say he was worthy of 8.5/10 whereas Hill at his peak was 7.5/10.

I think JV and Hill were much closer than you are stating, with Hill actually being a tad better, but if they raced against each other in equal cars for 5 years, Hill would probably win 3 out of those 5 years, so it would be close in my view.

The thing is I don't think that Hill and Villeneuve were closer than Ben is suggesting. They weren't particularly close but it was Hill that was better, in both qualifying and races.

It was 13-3 to Hill in qualifying and while the championship standings might suggest that Villeneuve closed the gap in the races, I do not think that this was the case. It was a few bad results here and there for Hill that enabled Villeneuve to make it look like a close season, rather than any sort of turnaround from Villeneuve in the races. Yes, it went to the last race but the gap was 19 points in the end, which is the same as if Hill led by 29 going into the last race and Villeneuve won the last race without Hill scoring. And it wouldn't have looked close then. There are a few examples in history of a slower driver somehow winning the championship against his team-mate (Lauda in 1984, Piquet in 1987 and Prost in 1989 (although there were suspicions of engine bias in Prost's case making Prost look slower than he was)).

Had the 1996 Williams not been dominant (more dominant than this year's Brawn by the way Ben) then some of the gaps between Hill and Villeneuve in qualifying could have translated to about 10 places on the grid.

Arguably Villeneuve was only reaching his peak towards the end of the season, with two of the 3 times he outqualified Hill being in the last 4 races, and with that good race at Portugal, suggesting that he may have been on his way to becoming a better driver, but equally it could just have been the nature of the tracks towards the end of the season - Hill wasn't good at fast corners and was also outqualified by Diniz at Spa.

Look at Villeneuve's later career anyway. He wasn't much better than Panis and was indeed slower than Button himself, the subject of this thread.

Had Hill and Villeneuve met later on in Villeneuve's career I'd still give it to Hill and in any case I'd probably say Coulthard ended up better than either, partly based on his form at the end of 1995.

[Platen Glass]

Platen Glass

Platen Glass

Show Platen Glass's last posts.

Show general stats for Platen Glass.

• 
• Guru Member
• Rep: +16/-21
• Posts: 1496

F1 is 95% the car and 5% the driver

This is why the "man on the street" laughs at F1 and doesn't take it seriously as a sport, although Quetzalcoatl used to deny this.

[Oonga Boonga]

Oonga Boonga

Oonga Boonga

Show Oonga Boonga's last posts.

Show general stats for Oonga Boonga.

• 
• Hero Member
• Rep: +8/-5
• Posts: 529

Villeneuve was a better racer than Hill and was faster too. Jacques wasn't amazing but at his peak I would say he was worthy of 8.5/10 whereas Hill at his peak was 7.5/10.

I think JV and Hill were much closer than you are stating, with Hill actually being a tad better, but if they raced against each other in equal cars for 5 years, Hill would probably win 3 out of those 5 years, so it would be close in my view.

The thing is I don't think that Hill and Villeneuve were closer than Ben is suggesting. They weren't particularly close but it was Hill that was better, in both qualifying and races.

It was 13-3 to Hill in qualifying and while the championship standings might suggest that Villeneuve closed the gap in the races, I do not think that this was the case. It was a few bad results here and there for Hill that enabled Villeneuve to make it look like a close season, rather than any sort of turnaround from Villeneuve in the races. Yes, it went to the last race but the gap was 19 points in the end, which is the same as if Hill led by 29 going into the last race and Villeneuve won the last race without Hill scoring. And it wouldn't have looked close then. There are a few examples in history of a slower driver somehow winning the championship against his team-mate (Lauda in 1984, Piquet in 1987 and Prost in 1989 (although there were suspicions of engine bias in Prost's case making Prost look slower than he was)).

Had the 1996 Williams not been dominant (more dominant than this year's Brawn by the way Ben) then some of the gaps between Hill and Villeneuve in qualifying could have translated to about 10 places on the grid.

Arguably Villeneuve was only reaching his peak towards the end of the season, with two of the 3 times he outqualified Hill being in the last 4 races, and with that good race at Portugal, suggesting that he may have been on his way to becoming a better driver, but equally it could just have been the nature of the tracks towards the end of the season - Hill wasn't good at fast corners and was also outqualified by Diniz at Spa.

Look at Villeneuve's later career anyway. He wasn't much better than Panis and was indeed slower than Button himself, the subject of this thread.

Had Hill and Villeneuve met later on in Villeneuve's career I'd still give it to Hill and in any case I'd probably say Coulthard ended up better than either, partly based on his form at the end of 1995.

Actually from what you have written, I now realise that I had been crediting JV with efforts that were actually delivered by DC in 1995.

I'd revise my 5 season tally to make it 4 to 1 in Hill's favour.

The only reason I am giving JV that one season is because I got the impression that the Williams team bosses held JV in higher regard than Hill, but their view may have been warped by them not fully realising how good Schumacher was in 1994/1995, till a few seasons later.

[mollymorals]

mollymorals

mollymorals

Show mollymorals's last posts.

Show general stats for mollymorals.

• 
• Full Member
• Rep: +2/-17
• Posts: 181

I'm not going to argue who would've won more out of Hill or Villeneuve during 5 years together... I have always held the impression that Villeneuve was better on the basis that he had more balls than Hill. A bit like in 2005 at Williams; Heidfeld was smooth, pretty quick and very consistent, but very boring. Webbo was far less 'clean' but he was willing to get stuck into fights with other drivers... It's a similar situation I would day. Btw, Hill knew all the circuits in 1996, Villeneuve didn't. And Jacques outqualified Hill on his debut and was about a second faster in qualifying at Suzuka. 

[mollymorals]

mollymorals

mollymorals

Show mollymorals's last posts.

Show general stats for mollymorals.

• 
• Full Member
• Rep: +2/-17
• Posts: 181

Villeneuve was a better racer than Hill and was faster too. Jacques wasn't amazing but at his peak I would say he was worthy of 8.5/10 whereas Hill at his peak was 7.5/10.

I think JV and Hill were much closer than you are stating, with Hill actually being a tad better, but if they raced against each other in equal cars for 5 years, Hill would probably win 3 out of those 5 years, so it would be close in my view.

Whilst irrelevant to assessing who was the better driver, Hill at least was the far more likeable of the two. ;D

So I stand fully by my statement: Button IS the most average world champion since Damon Hill.

I use to think this sort of statement was worth making, but now I am of the view it is just too miserable a position to be banging on about, and that the worst a WDC should suffer at the fate of the fans is to be NOT talked about, rather than rubbished as the worst or one of the worst, etc etc.

Yeah I know what you mean; I haven't posted this to slag Button off or anything. I'm really past the stage of caring about who's the best driver in F1 these days, I'm just really saying what's on my mind; that is, based on watching Button for many years, I have never seen him do anything especially remarkable. I suppose CT is right that it's 95% the car. His comment about Kubica was indeed a the truth.

[piket]

piket

piket

Show piket's last posts.

Show general stats for piket.

• 
• Sr. Member
• Rep: +1/-0
• Posts: 429

I don't understand why people feel the need to expend so much energy on being negative all the time, instead of enjoying the sport.

What says more about Button is this:

Button could have walked away this year with a large sum of money that was guaranteed him from the remaining period on the long term contract he had with Honda. Instead he waived this and signed up for Brawn with a much smaller retainer because he wanted to race.

"I could have taken the money and run -- because it was a lot of money. But what would be the point? What was I going to do with it?"

[mollymorals]

mollymorals

mollymorals

Show mollymorals's last posts.

Show general stats for mollymorals.

• 
• Full Member
• Rep: +2/-17
• Posts: 181

I don't understand why people feel the to expend so much energy on being negative all the time, instead of enjoying the sport.

What says more about Button is this:

Button could have walked away this year with a large sum of money that was guaranteed him from the remaining period on the long term contract he had with Honda. Instead he waived this and signed up for Brawn with a much smaller retainer because he wanted to race.

"I could have taken the money and run -- because it was a lot of money. But what would be the point? What was I going to do with it?"

I do admire Button's decision to stick with the team.  8)