Do BBC readers know anything?!
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/38409656
Any poll on the BBC website just feels like utter twaddle.
Their greatest one time world champions by popular vote
[quote=BBC]
1 Nigel Mansell
2 James Hunt
3 Jenson Button
4 Kimi Raikonnen
5 Jochen Rindt
6 Damon Hill,
7 John Surtees,
8 Jacques Villeneuve,
9 Mario Andretti,
10 Nico Rosberg,
11 Mike Hawthorn,
12 Alan Jones,
13 Giuseppe Farina,
14 Jody Scheckter,
15 Keke Rosberg,
16 Phil Hill,
17 Denny Hulme
Mansell I agree with.
Hunt, Button and Villeneuve are all far too high. Maybe Raikonnen too
Rindt and Surtees are too low as arguably is Keke Rosberg and Mario Andretti.
And whilst I know Denny Hulme wasn't the greatest F1 driver ever to have lived, but I would speculate he was last because 95% on the people who did the poll had never heard of him
Any poll on the BBC website just feels like utter twaddle.
Their greatest one time world champions by popular vote
[quote=BBC]
1 Nigel Mansell
2 James Hunt
3 Jenson Button
4 Kimi Raikonnen
5 Jochen Rindt
6 Damon Hill,
7 John Surtees,
8 Jacques Villeneuve,
9 Mario Andretti,
10 Nico Rosberg,
11 Mike Hawthorn,
12 Alan Jones,
13 Giuseppe Farina,
14 Jody Scheckter,
15 Keke Rosberg,
16 Phil Hill,
17 Denny Hulme
Mansell I agree with.
Hunt, Button and Villeneuve are all far too high. Maybe Raikonnen too
Rindt and Surtees are too low as arguably is Keke Rosberg and Mario Andretti.
And whilst I know Denny Hulme wasn't the greatest F1 driver ever to have lived, but I would speculate he was last because 95% on the people who did the poll had never heard of him
Edited by Vocal Minority on Friday 30th December 08:39
Does it make it wrong? Maybe not....
Could you argue the results hint at a level of knowledge that make the result less valid? In my opinion yes...
It's not like an election - when you ask a person what they would like - where there is by definition no wrong answers.
This asked who was the best - and whilst there are some subjective standards I admit - there are also some objective ones.
For example, as much as we all love James Hunt, could he be deemed the better driver/competitor/champion over John Surtees? Their track records and consistency speak for themselves on that one I think....
So I do think you can question its validity on that basis
Could you argue the results hint at a level of knowledge that make the result less valid? In my opinion yes...
It's not like an election - when you ask a person what they would like - where there is by definition no wrong answers.
This asked who was the best - and whilst there are some subjective standards I admit - there are also some objective ones.
For example, as much as we all love James Hunt, could he be deemed the better driver/competitor/champion over John Surtees? Their track records and consistency speak for themselves on that one I think....
So I do think you can question its validity on that basis
That's the trouble with opinion polls, everyone has an opinion, usually an uninformed opinion, i bet 75% or more of those who voted just looked at the poll and clicked on names they have heard of, 20% have only been interested in F1 for the last 10 years or so, so that leaves 5% who actually know what they are talking about to vote for the older less well know champs.
That's the trouble with modern society, everyone thinks they are educated and clever cos of google so we're back to the old saying about opinions, IE they are like a
holes, everyone has one and they usually stink of ste 
just like that poll.
That's the trouble with modern society, everyone thinks they are educated and clever cos of google so we're back to the old saying about opinions, IE they are like a
holes, everyone has one and they usually stink of ste just like that poll.Bound to be skewed towards more recent and more British champs.
The Surtees question is an interesting one - should we consider his motorcycle career when assessing his F1 achievements? In '64 he actually scored one less point than Graham Hill but won the crown because only 6 of 10 rounds counted towards the championship. Should his charity work or the tragic loss of his son make us consider his F1 results more sympathetically?
Similarly it is very difficult to assess daddy Rosberg's chapionship - he beat by 5 points someone who did not start 6 races (over a third of the season).
And how can one compare Farina to Raikonnen - Farina beat Fangio but Raikonnen beat Alonso and Hamilton, then again Villeneuve beat Schumacher.
I reckon devoting more than 30s of thought to this poll is a waste of live - unfortunately I have already done many times that.
The Surtees question is an interesting one - should we consider his motorcycle career when assessing his F1 achievements? In '64 he actually scored one less point than Graham Hill but won the crown because only 6 of 10 rounds counted towards the championship. Should his charity work or the tragic loss of his son make us consider his F1 results more sympathetically?
Similarly it is very difficult to assess daddy Rosberg's chapionship - he beat by 5 points someone who did not start 6 races (over a third of the season).
And how can one compare Farina to Raikonnen - Farina beat Fangio but Raikonnen beat Alonso and Hamilton, then again Villeneuve beat Schumacher.
I reckon devoting more than 30s of thought to this poll is a waste of live - unfortunately I have already done many times that.
I was quite impressed by the BBC vot on the top 100 Britons. The press made great play on Michael Crawford beating Queen Vic (not the pub) but Brunel came second with Darwin third and Shakespeare fourth. Stopes, rather unfairly, was way down, but there. Fair enough, Princess Di came third, but all in all most were high achievers. There were the occasional failures, which would include Shakleton, a childhood hero of mine, but not the most successful of adventurers, Guy Fawkes, and utter failure, Boudica, who killed lots and lots of Brits. Then there was the last Prince of Wales who did little, and a Scottish bloke whose only claim to fame seemed to be to lose to the English and Scots.
As an ex printer and current writer I was pleased to see Tyndale and Caxton in the list, although the latter was beaten by Blair. Wow!
The first religious nutter, if one excludes Cromwell, one of the biggest religious nutters we've spawned, was Wesley down at 50, but it isn't much of a religion he founded.
The Unknown Warrior was a rather poignant appointment.
There were some odd ones in the list, Bono being the most obvious, but Aleister Crowley was there. But as balance, W.Wilberforce was well within the first third, and Leonard Cheshire just behind.
I enjoyed hours of argument at work over the choices but all of us were quite impressed by the choices.
A minority sport is not the best thing for such a poll.
As an ex printer and current writer I was pleased to see Tyndale and Caxton in the list, although the latter was beaten by Blair. Wow!
The first religious nutter, if one excludes Cromwell, one of the biggest religious nutters we've spawned, was Wesley down at 50, but it isn't much of a religion he founded.
The Unknown Warrior was a rather poignant appointment.
There were some odd ones in the list, Bono being the most obvious, but Aleister Crowley was there. But as balance, W.Wilberforce was well within the first third, and Leonard Cheshire just behind.
I enjoyed hours of argument at work over the choices but all of us were quite impressed by the choices.
A minority sport is not the best thing for such a poll.
Vocal Minority said:
Does it make it wrong? Maybe not....
Could you argue the results hint at a level of knowledge that make the result less valid? In my opinion yes...
It's not like an election - when you ask a person what they would like - where there is by definition no wrong answers.
This asked who was the best - and whilst there are some subjective standards I admit - there are also some objective ones.
For example, as much as we all love James Hunt, could he be deemed the better driver/competitor/champion over John Surtees? Their track records and consistency speak for themselves on that one I think....
So I do think you can question its validity on that basis
John Surtees hasn't had a recent Hollywood movie made about him! Could you argue the results hint at a level of knowledge that make the result less valid? In my opinion yes...
It's not like an election - when you ask a person what they would like - where there is by definition no wrong answers.
This asked who was the best - and whilst there are some subjective standards I admit - there are also some objective ones.
For example, as much as we all love James Hunt, could he be deemed the better driver/competitor/champion over John Surtees? Their track records and consistency speak for themselves on that one I think....
So I do think you can question its validity on that basis
Derek Smith said:
I was quite impressed by the BBC vot on the top 100 Britons. The press made great play on Michael Crawford beating Queen Vic (not the pub) but Brunel came second with Darwin third and Shakespeare fourth. Stopes, rather unfairly, was way down, but there. Fair enough, Princess Di came third, but all in all most were high achievers. There were the occasional failures, which would include Shakleton, a childhood hero of mine, but not the most successful of adventurers, Guy Fawkes, and utter failure, Boudica, who killed lots and lots of Brits. Then there was the last Prince of Wales who did little, and a Scottish bloke whose only claim to fame seemed to be to lose to the English and Scots.
As an ex printer and current writer I was pleased to see Tyndale and Caxton in the list, although the latter was beaten by Blair. Wow!
The first religious nutter, if one excludes Cromwell, one of the biggest religious nutters we've spawned, was Wesley down at 50, but it isn't much of a religion he founded.
The Unknown Warrior was a rather poignant appointment.
There were some odd ones in the list, Bono being the most obvious, but Aleister Crowley was there. But as balance, W.Wilberforce was well within the first third, and Leonard Cheshire just behind.
I enjoyed hours of argument at work over the choices but all of us were quite impressed by the choices.
A minority sport is not the best thing for such a poll.
Bono should not be on a list of "100 Great Britons" for at least two reasons I can think of off hand.As an ex printer and current writer I was pleased to see Tyndale and Caxton in the list, although the latter was beaten by Blair. Wow!
The first religious nutter, if one excludes Cromwell, one of the biggest religious nutters we've spawned, was Wesley down at 50, but it isn't much of a religion he founded.
The Unknown Warrior was a rather poignant appointment.
There were some odd ones in the list, Bono being the most obvious, but Aleister Crowley was there. But as balance, W.Wilberforce was well within the first third, and Leonard Cheshire just behind.
I enjoyed hours of argument at work over the choices but all of us were quite impressed by the choices.
A minority sport is not the best thing for such a poll.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff