Ok last try to dismantle your rationalebhallg2k wrote:I understand the flow of the thread. The problem for me is that, for the reasons I've given, the rational side of my brain is pretty easily talking the creative side of my brain out of the choices it makes.
Andretti won in every series in which he participated, but he wasn't particularly dominant in any of them. Surtees could win in anything with wheels. Gilles Villeneuve could win with his eyes closed. Jim Clark had his brilliant career (life) cut short; likewise for Mike Hawthorn. Moss never won a title, but he beat the best. There's no telling how fast Senna and Prost could have been at the peak of their careers, because they were too busy fighting each other. At his best, Schumacher drove fast with relentless, clinical precision. The list goes on...
Too many choices for my meager mind to comprehend.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8abaa/8abaaa9c701c2a658534009f1dbf5fba230666b4" alt="Smile :)"
All the greats are scheduled for one lap shootout, again same cars, perfect setups blablabla.
You have 50 bucks you HAVE TO put on one driver you think would come out on top.
No ifs no buts, you must put them on a driver.
Who would you put that 50 bucks on?