Big Mangalhit wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 15:30
zac510 wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 14:49
Kingshark wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 09:35
Unfortunately, it tells you something about the state of this sport when pretty much everyone already knows the WDC and WCC before the season has even begun.
Let’s be real, do even the biggest optimists seriously believe that anyone other than Hamilton will actually win the championship?
It tells us that sport is a meritocracy and especially F1. Those with the collective (teams) greatest skills and ability will mostly win.
If you just want entertainment you should probably watch something else other than the outright championship battle (ie midfield) and that is true for all sports where the best team is far better.
I wouldn't say it is a meritocracy at all... If it were I think Findia would be winning. When you have such a disparity of budgets and even worse, prize money, then it isn't exactly based solely on merit. 100m/200m sprints is much more of a meritocracy in the sense that if you are really good you can win even if you come from a low budget background.
In F1 you have teams like Mercedes and RB backed by huge corporations, and even worse Ferrari which on top of that get a huge legacy bonus, then you have others just struggling to stay afloat. Also from the beginning of the drivers career you need sponsors and loads of money to get access to the faster cars. Heck even to be in F1 you need to pay loads of money and indeed several times money>talent to be in an F1 car, how is that for a meritocracy??
Having money is merit, though unfortunately. but it's shallow merit, for sure. That's why I qualified my comment on merit with the word collective - you really do need the money, engineers, factory, drivers. I know what you mean about FI though, their merit:expenditure ratio is outstanding but they don't have the best merit in every category.
Fortunately money does not always correlate to merit; Toyota, Honda, BAR etc all proved that at various points.