The fact, that these kind of topics emerge 6 years after Loeb retired, makes him the greatest :)
Printable View
The fact, that these kind of topics emerge 6 years after Loeb retired, makes him the greatest :)
Facts are never wrong. And the hard facts say he is the best of all time in nearly every comparisson. Those statistics are the only objective way to compare drivers, all other things you can come up with are opinions.
You can claim that other drivers where better, and you might be correct.
But that's not what the statistics say.
Correct. And the fact is, that we have no comparable statistics.
Ofcourse they're not objective. If we talk about rallysport (the format or formats that have been used since early 60's - which includes rallies with special stages and the so-called endurance events which didn't have them) we have to look at much longer period than the one the statistics are showing us. That should be pretty clear for everyone who's done any kind of research within this great sport.
Example: Now if you look at the statistics, they say that Loeb has 169 WRC starts and Hannu Mikkola has 123 WRC starts. But ofcourse everyone with any kind of rallying knowledge understands that this doesn't tell you anything, i.e. comparing those two figures as "statistics" is total nonsense.
Okay guys, one more time.
Loeb has won 78 WRC rally. But it is also something else he has most of, and it's really very illogical. Some other drivers should have the most of this.
Ogier showed the same property in the season 2017. Meek showed the total opposite.
What am I aiming for?
This is what makes him the best of all time. But it seems that Ogier has the same property.
I think that Ogier is aiming to shit all your brains out to become best of all. 😂 just wait couple of years, when he will have 13 wrc titles (probably 3 different manus-if skoda get in he will get the seat). Probably wec title and some others I don't know what he is interesting in.
PS: maybe I should post this in Crystal Ball
There has been some fairly amusing hyperventilating on this thread over the last few days. My personal favourites: calling Kankkunen "crap", and stating that to compare Loeb with Makinen or Kankkunen is "laughable". These are patently ridiculous statements. There are more than a few Loeb lovers on these boards, of which I am not one, but lets try and keep the discussion within the bounds of reality. Loeb is certainly one of the greatest rally drivers who ever lived. For me, he's not the best ever, but thats a matter of personal opinion. I think that part of the reason Loeb evokes such extreme reactions in people is that the Loeb era, or at least the second half of it, was probably one of the worst eras in the WRC, with very little competition or manufacturer participation and a declining visibility for the sport. Thankfully, those days seem to be long gone.
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
So when Loeb wins, there was competition. When anyone else wins, there was no competition. Got it.
Seriously, how retard are you? I mean... I get that you're an Estonian and all that, but Jesus Christ... have you ever noticed or heard, that the guys competing for the title in the 80's PICKED the rallies they entered? In an era where it would make no sense from the rules perspective to enter all events, you know?
And you idiot compare the retirement ratio of 2000's with one of 80's and 90's? And you count rally wins? I bet Timo Mäkinen won more rallies than Loeb did. How's that?
And yes, I also think that Loeb is the best there ever was, but how utterly mentally challenged you have to be, if your case is based on pure numbers in a sport that has been revolutionized a few times during the time period we all should be looking at?
That's the only conclusion that could be drawn based on the evidence as you've presented it. Your unwillingness or inability to entertain, let alone accept, an alternate opinion to your own makes it very difficult to have a reasonable discussion. I've admitted that I'm no fan of Loeb, and also stated that he's undoubtedly one of the greatest rally drivers who has ever lived, but that doesn't seem to be enough. I get the impression that I could post on this forum stating that the sky was blue and you'd find a way to disagree. Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion, as am I, and that is after all, the point of these forums.
You're entitled to your opinion. But obviously when you state the reasons behind your opinion, someone of a different opinion will tell you why they think you're wrong. For example, I counter your statement that Loeb had no competition in 2009-2012 by saying that you're completely ignoring and understimating Hirvonen and later Ogier. Nobody says "Loeb faced the fiercest of competitions ever seen in WRC between 2009 and 2012" but saying that he had no competition and that those were easy titles for him is wrong in my opinion.
To answer your question directly: I think Hirvonen was a very capable driver and may have won several championships in a different era; my point is that he was really the only competition Loeb had, after Gronholm retired. In previous years, there were many ex-champions fighting for victory, say in the 90s, where you had Biasion, Auriol, Kankkunen, Sainz, then McRae, Makinen, Burns, Gronholm, plus specialists like Panizzi, Liatti, etc. In those years, you were never really sure who was going to win any given rally. The second half of the Loeb era was a far cry from those days..I am well aware that Loeb beat all of them during the first half of his reign, but after Gronholm went, there wasn't very much......depth to the competition.
Okay, at least we passed from "no competition" to "one driver". I agree that 2009 and 2010 were years of little competition, other than Hirvonen there were Solberg with private Citroen, Sordo and Latvala who weren't good enough and Ogier who was still a rookie, so that leaves only Hirvonen as a tough opponent (even if at least Sordo and Latvala can only blame themselves for not being fast enough, they had works cars as well).
But 2011 and 2012 I really cannot see why you say there was little competition. Especially 2011, it was a very competitive year! Every round (except the asphalt ones because the two Seb were too fast) we could have had 4 different winners: Loeb, Ogier, Hirvonen and Latvala. 4 isn't THAT much, but their times were always similar and some rallies were really tight, at the penultimate round we had 3 drivers fighting for the title, because Latvala made too many mistakes in the first rounds. So I really don't understand why 2011 would be a season with no competition, I'd say the opposite.
2012 not as much, but still Loeb had to face Hirvonen, Latvala and Solberg with works cars. Now to me, that is a particular season, because in almost every single round. the works Ford of Latvala and Solberg had problems (mostly because of their drivers' faults). But it feels a bit forced to me saying that in 2012 there was no competition when Loeb had those 3 drivers to face. One could also say Solberg's speed was fading and it's true, but both him and Loeb were born in 1974, so it's only Loeb's merit if he was still fast that year.
So what I would personally say is that Loeb had little competition in 2009 and 2010 (but by little I mean few drivers, because I rate Hirvonen as a driver who would have deserved to be world champion in his career, if he hadn't have to face Loeb and then Ogier)
You haven't backed your story by a single bit. I've presented hard cold facts. Only thing you have presented is blabbering with foul language and insults. Tells a lot about your personality.
I'm well aware of rallying history.
Guess the hurt and pain is very real and stronger than I anticipated. Nuff said, I won't be goin down on your road. Reported and added new member in ignore list.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk
He was crap, especially that year he didn't compete in the last 4 or so events and still won the championship! :p