the only ridiculous statement is that a driver that cant win at asphalt is a better driver than Loeb.
2017 championship team, was the same rival team for years as the ''worst era with Loeb dominating''
reality check done.
Printable View
Not true. I'd take a look at the 2011 season. By comparison, Ogier's championships with VW had much less competition, but that doesn't really take that much away from Ogier because he destroyed everyone anyway.
It's true that in some years there were very little manufacturer participation, but it's not like there were very fast drivers sitting at home because of lack of manufacturer seats...
Here we go again selective reading skills at it's finest. Crap in asphalt, didn't call him overall like that. Mentioned he's a great driver but lacking asphalt skills. Really hard to understand? A complete driver has to master all the surfaces and KKK was nowhere near the best pace in asphalt. Thus should not be mentioned in a discussion best ever.
It's quite weird that you lower your standards so low as comparing a driver with almost a 4 times less rally wins, below average in tarmac to the only guy who has 46% win ratio, 12% retirement ratio, a guy who beat his closest rival by not participating in a 4 last decisive rallyes and still clinching a title. The list goes on...
And I'm the least Loeb fan here, I found his dominance quite irritating at the time. But you can't take away his achievements, this guy has done something that noone did before and probably noone will do it after. Putting some random guys in the mix whit no proof, no facts and lowering standards for some of them and to raise the standards for the guy do not like....
This is what I find amusing
Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk
There has always been only around 3 manus in the chamionship and some odd team trying to cone into play. 80's Audi, Pug and Lancia. 90's Ford, Toyota and Lancia. Mid 90's Subaru, Mitsubishi, Toyota and Ford and so on. Overall the quantity of the competition has stayed roughly the same throughout the years.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk
whats the problem with 2 manufacturers? At the era you mentioned at previous posts ,they were skoda with octavia and hyundai with accent.Did they offer proper competition?
competition doesnt come always with quantity.
reality check Lancia 037 vs audi quattro ,2 players plenty of competition.
Ogier era with vw against citroen/ford/hyundai no competition.
with your theory lancia vs audi was no competition,but there was at polo/Ogier years.
No it was the opposite.
Ok sure. On that event on that day he "crushed" Grönholm..
But when Grönholm beat him then he must have "crushed" Loeb...That day..At that event..
I'm just saying the the words used are silly.
It's like when F1 fan-bois pee their pants on those rare occasions that one guy actually passes another they try to find superlatives to "BRILLIANT!!!!" yeah, right every pass is brilliant so the latest pass is what "Hyper-brilliant"?
The problem with 2 manufacturers is that, in general, it means less competition. You cannot seriously claim that from 2009-2012, with only Citroen and Ford, there was the same level of competition as say 2000-2004, when there were at least 4 manufacturers, all fielding ex-world champion drivers. That's just not rational.
If I agree with your assertion that in the "Ogier era with VW against Citroen/Ford/Hyundai no competition", then you'd surely have to admit that there was no competition from 2009-2012 either.
2009 Loeb won with 1 point from Hirvonen.No competition?
2010 Loeb won with big margin against Hirvonen,Latvala,Solberg,Ogier,Sordo. No competition?
2011 Loeb won 222 points against 218 for Hirvonen and 196 for Ogier and 172for Latvala.No competition?
to admit that there is ''no competition'' you have to examinate properly each year.
If a driver wins some championships in a row that doesnt mean that ''there is no competition'' but that he was better from his rivals.
boring that wins the same person? Maybe,but NOT that there is no competition