I'd like to ask you all what makes a championship good or in good shape?

In ERC, there are approximately 10 regulars, with 5 (point-scoring) drivers have started every round. Only one of the regulars has won a round, but that winner has missed a third of the season so far. The top 3 in the championship have 3 podiums between them from 18 starts, no wins. 5 of the 6 rally winners this season have only entered the round that they won, leaving them outside the top 10 in the championship. ERC is in great shape, it is said here.

On the flip side in WRC Rally1, there are also approximately 10 regulars, with 6 drivers have started every round. Only two of the full timers have won a round each, the same 2 are the only two in the top 5 in the championship to have won - excepting Ogier. Ogier has now flipped from a local/specialist driver mentality (part time wants to win rallies), to now being a championship regular with a point-scoring focus. WRC Rally1 is in terrible shape, we can read here. But ERC and Rally1 are very similar in these descriptions.

In WRC2, it is complained that the regulars can avoid each other, and the top 2 in the championship have not covered any asphalt, which begs the question are they even regulars or specialists/locals?

So what is it that makes a good championship? I have focused on championship points and scores here, so maybe missing the point on what makes things great/poor for a championship. But I think also to ask why do specialist local drivers add value to a championship?