How about you create a poll then. ''Who is the best driver on the current F1 paddock'' and see what it says. Might as well put your 'money' where your mouth is.mnmracer wrote:Keep telling yourself that often enough, and I'm sure it will become reality on your mindJimClarkFan wrote:This is kind of what I'm saying. Stick a Ham or Alonso in the RBR car and you also have them dominating as well. Therefore I don't think it correct to say it is a 'Vettel' era. Statistically that may be correct, but in reality he isn't even the best driver by almost everyones subjective measure.
Again you're using your own interpretation of my words and trying to force that meaning on me as if it were my own.mnmracer wrote: Speaking of which, do you know the meaning of unambiguous? Let me help you:
"Not open to more than one interpretation."
I know what I meant, and I suspect many others did as well given the context of the sentence within my post and the others I subsequently posted. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish here, my position hasn't changed. But I'm sure you'll want the last word.
This is complete rubbish.mnmracer wrote: So there is no objective difference to mention between the two? None whatsoever?
There is more to objectivity then statistics, i.e. comparing circumstances, comparing what they do, comparing what happened around them. But aparently you are only interested in opinions, and you can't even get those right.
Statistics are purely objective, you cannot take into account circumstances or the 'Adrian Newey factor' unless you can control for it. You also can't have a purely objective argument about how good a driver is because it cannot account for context despite what you might think. Unless you get all drivers together in the same spec car at the same time and get them to race you can never truly have an objective argument. So stop fooling yourself otherwise.