gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Using history as the argument that it is
> 'devaluing past records' is bollocks. As many here
> will know by now, I'm a traditional in most areas,
> but there's no continuity in the points throughout
> F1 history.
I have to completely disagree there.
There's actually been plenty of continuity in the points system from 1950 up to now - it hasn't stayed
exactly the same, no, but it's always stayed very similar from one era to the next, and the system has evolved nicely. 8-6-4-3-2 for the top 5 in the 50s, the addition of the point for 6th in 1960, then the winner being awarded 9 points from 1961 onwards and then the system staying completely unchanged until 1991(if that's not continuity, frankly I'd like to know what is). Then the minimal change of increasing the number of points for a win to 10, after which it stayed unchanged till the change in 2003 to the last one. Every change so far has been small and evolutionary; the number of points awarded for each top 5 position hasn't changed by more than 2 so far in F1's entire history. To suddenly go from that to a 150% increase in the number of points for said positions is a massive jump.
So I stand by my original argument - since the scoring systems throughout history have all been pretty similar(in terms of the actual number of points scored) and this one will be radically different, it
will have the effect of devaluing the achievements of previous greats - at least in terms of the number of points scored - if it's used for many seasons. Imagine Hamilton coming good and having a season like, say, Schumacher had in 2002 or 2004. We'd have n00bs saying things like "Lewis is greater than Clark and Fangio! He scored more points this season than they scored in their careers, LOLOLOLO!" and other similar BS. I cringe at the mere anticipation of things like that. (As said above, there should really be a pre-2010 division and a 2010-onwards division in the history books for points scored, if they're going to do this.)
So no, it isn't a worthless thing to say, and it isn't bollocks any more than the "no continuity in the points" argument is.
What I'm saying is - increase the number of points-paying positions, yes, and increase the number of points for the higher positions accordingly. If the time for some more changes has come, then I have no problem with that. But make those changes sensible and logical ones which continue the evolutionary process above, not OTT ones.