How good is Sebastien Loeb?

[janvanvurpa]

Speaking the truth gets the best name-calling out of you? I won't go as low as you went. I rely on statistics. He was crap compared to Loeb in every aspects you can get. Great driver but utterly crap compared to Loeb, specially on tarmac. Can't stand the truth?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk

Cali you are not relying on statstic, you are relying on emotional words...
Patience and consider what I say...
There is a terrible amount of what I call "fan boi based exaggeration"..
Loeb was good...but when the gap after 3+ hours of SS ti,es is 5-15-30 seconds you go and do the statstics, the % difference and I think you will see that 0.3% difference between Loeb and Grönholm is not "CRUSHING!"

Crushing is what Happened to the American "rally God" Ben Klock when even after 4 years he lose 2-5 minutes to the real guys per SS. That is crushing. When after 4 yeats spending 4-5 million a year he gets his SS times beaten by 2 guys in Golfs and 1 in a 940 Volvo in the Swedish class Grupp H...
THAT is crushing
...3% time difference is beating, 0,3% is enough but!!

And everybody talks this absurd way except...except..
serious drivers.

Now come on do some work with the calculator, stop sh!t-talking

[denkimi]

Cali you are not relying on statstic, you are relying on emotional words...
Patience and consider what I say...
There is a terrible amount of what I call "fan boi based exaggeration"..
Loeb was good...but when the gap after 3+ hours of SS ti,es is 5-15-30 seconds you go and do the statstics, the % difference and I think you will see that 0.3% difference between Loeb and Grönholm is not "CRUSHING!"

Crushing is what Happened to the American "rally God" Ben Klock when even after 4 years he lose 2-5 minutes to the real guys per SS. That is crushing. When after 4 yeats spending 4-5 million a year he gets his SS times beaten by 2 guys in Golfs and 1 in a 940 Volvo in the Swedish class Grupp H...
THAT is crushing
...3% time difference is beating, 0,3% is enough but!!

And everybody talks this absurd way except...except..
serious drivers.

Now come on do some work with the calculator, stop sh!t-talking

If we rely on statistics, loeb has crushed everyone.

Oh, and remember that time loeb crashed in monte, got a 5 minutes penalty and still finished only a minute behind gronholm? That is crushing, even without statistics.

[Allez Andruet]

Is he the greatest of all time? Not only is that not the question in hand, it is also impossible to answer if we don't all agree on numbers of titles and wins as the appropriate measurment.

But how could we agree on that? What is that statistics, which we could use for comparing the greats of different eras (number vs. number)? My point is, and as I wrote earlier, I'd also vote for Loeb, but it's defintely up for discussion, not a no-contest.

[Allez Andruet]

If we rely on statistics, loeb has crushed everyone.

Yeah, and once the WRC calendar has 100 rallies in a season and one guy happens to win 90 of them, he's crushed Loeb. Genius.

[cali]

Yeah, and once the WRC calendar has 100 rallies in a season and one guy happens to win 90 of them, he's crushed Loeb. Genius.

http://www.juwra.com/driver_statistics_win_ratio.html

You really should look at this site, made by a finn. Great work done with this site. Have a look before you post some nonsense again.

[denkimi]

Yeah, and once the WRC calendar has 100 rallies in a season and one guy happens to win 90 of them, he's crushed Loeb. Genius.

As cali said. Look at the victory numbers in comparison with the number of starts. The conclusion stays the same, statistically loeb has crushed every one.

[Allez Andruet]

http://www.juwra.com/driver_statistics_win_ratio.html

You really should look at this site, made by a finn. Great work done with this site. Have a look before you post some nonsense again.

Uuuh... "nonsense"

[Allez Andruet]

As cali said. Look at the victory numbers in comparison with the number of starts. The conclusion stays the same, statistically loeb has crushed every one.

I can look at that number, no problem. Now I only need to know what does it tell. How do I use that number if I want to compare Loeb to Hannu Mikkola or Walter Röhrl for example?

In a nutshell: yes, I do agree that Loeb is the best ever, but everyone who's justifying that argument by pointing to some figures which aren't comparable between the participants, has no clue about comparing basically anything.

[denkimi]

I can look at that number, no problem. Now I only need to know what does it tell. How do I use that number if I want to compare Loeb to Hannu Mikkola or Walter Röhrl for example?

In a nutshell: yes, I do agree that Loeb is the best ever, but everyone who's justifying that argument by pointing to some figures which aren't comparable between the participants, has no clue about comparing basically anything.

It only tells that loeb is statistically the best.
I'm not saying that makes him te best of all time, since statistics don't show how much off it is due to the car, lack of opponents or other factors.
But janvanpuura claimed that the statistics don't show that loeb crushed gronholm, but they clearly do.

[Allez Andruet]

It only tells that loeb is statistically the best.

No. Again - in this sport there's no such statistics which is comparable between the drivers of different eras, thus the claim of being "statistically the best" is irrelevant.