F1 Fanatic

Arguments for Damon Hill I can see where they come from. He did win the championship in a great car, but looking back, he really should have had it in 94, when his car probably wasnt the best on the grid (after all the super-duper Williams gadgetry from the early 90s had been outlawed by then) and was at an unfair advantage to Michael (who, as it has been stated by team-mates at the time, had many suspect devices available to him on the car). If the stewards from Jerez 97 were at Adelaide, then he would have :P. Plus, for those few years, he was the only person close to Schumachers level. So for that reason, I can’t count Hill in there (plus, I will admit, I was a bit of a Hill fanboy back in the day :P)

Hmm, a very interesting question to bring up! I do believe each World Champion is great in their own way, and each had their own different approach to taking the title. It’s also very difficult to judge drivers from different eras (as was the case when the Champion of Champions contest came about), but here are a few suggestions:

Farina: Beat Fangio in the very first season, where a single retirement could heavily impact the championship standings. Farina won by just 3 points, gifted from a fourth place. The Alfa-Romeo won every race in 1950 (excl. the Indy 500)

Hawthorn: Won the Championship with just 1 race win in 1958. He was also given the title after fellow Brit and rival Stirling Moss appealed Hawthorn’s disqualification from the final race.

P. Hill: Was given the title in tragic circumstances, after his team leader was killed. Least number of points for a Champion and tied for fewest wins. Ferrari dominated that season.

Andretti: Like Hill, was given the title after his teammate, the highly rated Ronnie Petersen, was killed. Lotus dominated that season.

Scheckter: Used consistency to beat the very popular Gilles Villeneuve in 1979 in a very strong Ferrari.

Mansell: Tried time and time again to win the title, lost out to Prost in ’86 despite having the best car, lost out to arch rival Piquet in ’87 after breaking his back, and was soundly beaten by Prost at Ferrari. Dominated in 1992 in that all-conquering Williams, retired, came back before a dismal move to McLaren.

Villeneuve: Gave the more experienced Damon Hill a run for his money in his debut season, and won many races in yet another very good Williams car. Never won a race after 1997, and now we just can’t seem to get rid of him.

Don’t get me wrong, what each of these achieved is something only 32 people ever have, but there is obviously the argument that some are greater than others.

Personally, I would say Villeneuve. Peaked far too early, and then just gave up after running out of things to crash into.

I will say this in Phil Hill’s favour- in the 7 races he competed in during his championship year, he had pole position in 5 and finished on the podium in 6. The reason for him being the lowest scoring champion is partly due to the low number of races, and the presence of a team mate who was on fairly equal terms with him, which meant having to share a lot of points between them (and Moss who as always was very fast when his car didn’t break down).

I think people vote JV, because he was the latest of the “bad” champions, and a lot of people actually watched him race in the TV or live. He’s a natural pick for people who don’t remember the previous, one-time champions, such as P. Hill, Hulme or Scheckter. Not saying that I do remember them, but that’s what comes to my mind seeing all these votes.

In my opinion we shouldn’t consider the whole career of the champion in this discussion. Just the year in which the champion won.

And if you ask me, I’d say Phil Hill.

You’ve got to be a quality driver to win the WDC in the first place, but my vote goes to Jacques Villeneuve, purely on how he just wasted every ounce of his talent after 1997. I mean, nearly marrying Dannii Minogue wasn’t one of his finest moments, but he now seems to have an opinion on everything even though nobody really asks him (except his commentary roles, of course). And the shocking BAR/Renault/Sauber era (I was 3 years old in 1997, so I only remember his last F1 teams) really turned people’s opinions on him.

I don’t think anyone can seriously make a claim for Andretti to be the worst world champion ever. Andretti was probably past his prime in ’78 but he did all the hard slog over the previous seasons to make the car the outstanding package it was with the ground effects system and thus reaped the benefits by being made number 1 driver over Peterson by Chapman. And Andretti was ahead in the championship when Peterson was killed, it wasn’t like he was behind and then overtook when Ronnie died. Come on, it’s Mario Andretti, an all time motorsport great. If you look at his entire racing career and not just F1 it is as good as anyones out there, probably only matched by the likes of Moss and Clark with success across multiple disciplines.

Jacques Villenueve?