Non champions

[D-Type]

Whoops! Add Bruce McLaren to the list!

An interesting thing is that when you apply other scoring systems, even to the extreme of number of wins or a 24,23,22, ..., 1 points system, the majority of champions don't change and when they do the main effect is the number of championships won by multiple champions. From memory, I think the only non-champion who becomes a champion is Moss.

In boxing, a champion remains champion until he is defeated. Could we have something like this in F1? You couldn't go on a "who won the last race?" basis but you could do it on a rolling score basis: "Points scored (or number of wins) in the last year (or 6 months or 2 years)". Fangio and Schumacher would still reign as Champion for many years while tightly contested eras would probably show the World Champion changing between two drivers almost race by race. I've never tried it, so I don't know, but it would be an interesting exercise.

[D28]

The boxing analogy is a bit to radical for F1 for my taste. I prefer stability in scoring which is one knock against the present system. I liked the 1961 or 91 systems, and never liked the discarding of points with only x number of races counting. Thus Prost should have been champion again 1n 1988 outpointing Senna 105 to 94.
Someone did a rescoring exercise here a few years back and you are right about not many changes resulted.
It gives statisticians something more to discuss, or argue about I guess.

[Parabolica]

Although a Prost devotee, I do believe that he would have lost the 86 title had the dropped-scores system not been in place?

[D28]

Although a Prost devotee, I do believe that he would have lost the 86 title had the dropped-scores system not been in place?

The totals for 86 were 74 Prost 72 Mansell. Both dropped 2 to make it 72 to 70. It made no difference,

[Parabolica]

The totals for 86 were 74 Prost 72 Mansell. Both dropped 2 to make it 72 to 70. It made no difference,

But Mansell would he been Champion, as he scored more wins. I believe that the count-back system did apply.

[Ex-Jagboy]

The 1958 season,and perhaps the most compelling involving British drivers , was probably ultimately decided more by mechanical retirements at crucial periods, rather than by an idiotic scoring system, with the Ferrari`s superior reliability clearly being a major factor in Hawthorn`s narrow championship win, Although it could equally be argued that Hawthorn was denied victory at Monaco due to fuel pump failure, and should have won at Monza ,when comfortably leading, only to suffer serious clutch slip, gifting the win to Brooks, but nevertheless still managing to secure 2nd place, Yet Moss`s 5 retirements similarly at crucial periods almost certainly denied him victories in a number of races, denying him, as we later learnt, his last serious opportunity to win the world crown in a properly structured works team. Whether or not Hawthorn was deserving of his championship, or was not even the 2nd best driver that year is a debate that those who experienced that era will continue to argue over.

[jens]

Not going to add anything here at the present moment. I just want to say a big thank you to you, dear F1 enthusiasts. Very nice and intelligent discussion to read.

[journeyman racer]

Off the top of my head, since I've been following F1 (1990), JP Montoya would have to be the best one? He's the only one who hadn't won a title that I could imagine being a champ. Actually, make that equal best with Robert Kubica. (Hopefully Robbie can build himself up to win the WRC!)

Special mention to HHF. I really wanted him to get that 99 title!

[555-04Q2]

Special mention to HHF. I really wanted him to get that 99 title!

Remember the 99 season well. It was a pretty dramatic one and HHF had a great year in the Jordan. Pity they couldn't close out the season