It raises an interesting question. Which of the following results is better:
- Three second places and a third
- Two wins, one fifth and a six
- One win, one second, one third and a fifth
Those are Hamilton, Massa and Alonso’s results so far. On the face of it, does Hamilton really deserve to be ahead of Massa?
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not taking anything away from Hamilton. His start to the season has exceeded even the expectations of those who knew just how special he before he started in F1.
But as I’ve said before I don’t think the current points system rewards race results fairly. I think race wins are far more important than consistent runs to lower points-paying positions.
Giving eight points for a win was a bad decision made as a knee-jerk reaction to Michael Schumacher’s suffocating domination of the 2002 championship.
Ranking drivers in terms of their most best results would shift the focus of a championship effort towards winning races rather than simply finishing them.
Plus if it was used across the motor sports spectrum it would make comparing the efforts of different drivers in different series far better.
If we ranked the top 2007 championship contenders by their results we get:
1. Massa (two wins)
2. Alonso (one win, one, second)
3. Raikkonen (one win, two thirds)
4. Hamilton (three seconds).
If that’s a little harsh on Hamilton, it’s far less harsh than the current system is on Massa.
- The argument against championship points (III)
- Places not points revisited
- Prizes for places, not points