Prost is an example anyway. Even if you keep their points system, he got robbed in 1988 where he finished 11 points ahead of Senna if you count all races that year.

Senna vs Prost where comparisons could be made and no mechanical failures Qualifying= 28-4 to senna Race= 17-7 to Senna No all time great gets slapped this much by his teammate

Well that's also because he vetoed Senna as his team mate for a couple years 😂

@@goatgoat9940 Prost wasn't robbed. It was the rules that states that you lost one worst result and Prost's was a good result while Senna's wasn't. That was the rules, it wasn't robbery. Prost robbed Senna however in 1989.

@@lake4ishikawa well, Prost liked the whole team for himself and Senna was the future. Senna was the youngest of all "4 greats" of the 80's. In fact, Piquet and Prost began in the late 70's. However that is Prost's own fault. I mean, Ron Dennis gave Prost the option of Piquet or Senna and Prost chose Senna so... Hahahaha. The rest is history.

I thought that was probably the most impressive thing about this video, how has that season not been made into a movie yet?

it makes that moment hurt even more. still after 14 years it hurts so much...

@@SaarlaneKretiin it does hurt, but Ferrari have themselves to blame. They SHOULD have won that championship easily, but made too many strategy, and pit blunders throughout the season.

Considering the new 25 for a win points system came in for 2010 and was probably being brainstormed in 2009 I’m willing to bet they deliberately tested it on the 2008 standings and saw it kept the gap at 1 point

@@Spike-sk7ql i know i know. but those moments still haunt me after experiencing them live. the phrase "is that glock going slowly" still stings. massa gave them everything for the title and ferrari couldve done better. the story of being a ferrari fan...

Prost was very underrated

and tied with Sir Lewis for 7 titles while Schumacher would only have 6

@@nono-mu9rw the 1997 season nicely shows the issue of such theorectical games. schumacher would have never rammed villeneuve because a 2nd place would have been more then enough, so he wouldnt have been disqualified. if my maths is correct schumacher would have led the championship by 21 points before the last race. there are probably some other instances were last race incidents would have not happened or happened different because of a different points situation before the race.

@@hanswurst6712 obviously I know that, but I still think that it's kinda interesting to see prost gaining so many wdcs if we change the point system to what it is today

@@hanswurst6712 While yes, thats true, you could just change it too "he was desperate for the win." Just as scummy, and pretty believable, not totally

Eddie Irvine was never going to be world champion because when he was in a position to win the championship he partied even harder the night before the races and blew it. I remember meeting some fans at Monaco who had printed a load of green shirts with "Shaguar 7 Irvine" on them 😁

Thats the #1 thing I took from this 🤣

Yes it's like Schumacher 2002 and 2004, Vettel 2013 and Hamilton 2020. Even 2014 if it wasn't for his reliability issues

That would be a great idea

2005 Alonso 115 Raikkonen 99 2006 Alonso 116 Schumacher 104 2007 Raikkonen 93 Hamilton 87 Alonso 85 Massa 72 2008 Massa 83 Hamilton 80 2009 Button 76 Vettel 69 Webber 54.5 Barrichello 51 2010 Vettel 84 Alonso 81 Webber 76 (moves above HAM on countback with one more win) Hamilton 76 Button 61 2012 Vettel 91 Alonso 86 2014 Hamilton 136 Rosberg 113 2015 Hamilton 141 Rosberg 110 2016 Hamilton 136 (wins on countback because he had one more win) Rosberg 136 2017 Hamilton 128 Vettel 106 Bottas 95 2018 Hamilton 148 Vettel 102 2021 (half-points for Spa and no points for sprint races) Verstappen 143 Hamilton 135

@@clubpenguin13531 What about 2011?

​@@Brinta3Vettel wins. No need to research, he was so far ahead anyway

Or the original 8-6-4-3-2 plus 1 point for fastest lap no matter where of if they finished

Exactly thankyou for talking some sense Keep fighting Michael forever the GOAT 🏆🇩🇪🏆🇩🇪🏆🇩🇪🏆🇩🇪🏆

@@zxr-cade2026 Well one of the GOAT's at least. I think Prost would be a serious contender for that title as well as he would have managed to win 7 WDC, while battling the likes of Lauda, Piquet, Senna and Mansell.

the video was about the points awarded for each individual race you cannot speculate on what may have happened on the track because that no one knows

@@mjr320 Yes you can, because he would have won the championship a round earlier... he didn't score points in the last race and had a DSQ, so if he'd already been champion there was never any reason to even do this... he was already done... The entire problem was the loosing of the championship, thus doing something utter stupid and wrong. Despite being a fan of him, still, that was just that.

Exactly. Thank you

Finally someone calls Prost a GOAT

100% correct

Max Verstappen is belgian

@@madkrabber696 I know but he's driving under the Dutch flag

@@BoyFromBelgium99 max also wasnt around to win in 1970

@@madkrabber696 Verstappen is Dutch. His father is Dutch, his mother is Belgian and he got a Dutch passport when he turned 18

@@raymondhartmeijer9300 he has also a belguim paspoort and lived in belguim till he moved to monaco. But most of all he is a limburger haha

In this alternate universe, Paris partied so hard when Alain Prost claimed his 1st title in 1983...

He should have been crowned 6 times at least even with the old system ( having more points than Lauda and Senna at the end of 2 championships). But Prost is the Goat in my mind, such a great driver, winning often against the odds because he was such a good race setup engineer too) in an era of greatness... ( Mansell, Senna, Piquet, Lauda, etc... )

I read a summary of the F1 season in 1970, where the author said he was against Rindt taking the title, because it emphasized how dangerous F1 was. I don't remember the name of the author, but the article was in Road & Track.

Jacky Ickx may become Belgium's 1st World Champion but Jochen Rindt would miss out on becoming Austria's 1st World Champion if the modern points system was used in 1970...

He also holds the highest podium to races started ratio with a whopping 68,6% (not counting those drivers who started less than 8 races). 35 podiums in 51 starts is nothing to scoff at. Certainly not in an era when cars breaking down with mechanical issues and deadly crashes were common. Oh, and he was in his 40's too... One can only imagine how he would have been like in his 30's if there had been no WWII and there had been a F1 world championship in 1940-1949 too... From what I've read Fangio raced Chevrolet cars in 1940-1941-1942 in grueling road races on South American roads which took place over 6 days(!). He was shown to be immensely talented already but these amazing feats never made any headlines because 1) It was a world war going on in the rest of the world and 2) Whatever happened in South America rarely made headlines even at peacetime. The limited travel arrangements (people reached other continents by ship) and logistical issues of the 1950's made a present day 20+ race calender on different continents impossible. But had there been say a European 20 GP calender in the 1950's (with races on several different tracks in the same country) one can only imagine how many Fangio would have won.

Can't beat the OG. I love how he's on top in both videos, regarding the initial and the current points system. Alberto Ascari also scores very, very high in both. Of course, no one can tell how that would've changed had he not died in a crash at Monza, but I've never heard people mention his name when it comes to driver skill discussions.

Trivia: He led the most laps out of all drivers in 1981 and 1982 too. Meaning that without the bad reliability of the Renault (they really shot themselves in the foot all the time and should easily have been the first turbo-champions if half-competently managed) the 1981 and 1982 titles may very well have been his too. Ron Dennis offered Prost a contract for 1994 to drive for McLaren since he valued Prost's talent highly. Alas Prost (wisely) declined knowing the car wouldn't be competitive. McLaren again offered him a test in 1996 for a potential comeback (aged 41, younger than Alonso is now) but again Prost concluded that the McLaren and the Mercedes engine needed much development so he wasn't going to race just to make up numbers. According to the teams Prost raced for he never drove faster than he needed to be and was unmatched at strategic driving. It's quite possible that judged from this factor alone he was without peer in F1 history. While people will point out that Senna had more poles than Prost in 1988-1989 in the races themselves Prost had 12 fastest laps compared to Senna's 6. This probably is explained by Prost being easier on the tires, brakes and the car overall. And yes, let us not forget that he also holds the distinction of having 5 F1 champion team-mates (Lauda, Keke Rosberg, Senna, Mansell, Damon Hill), all of which he beat at least once. Lauda and Senna being triple-champions themselves. When one compares to say Schumacher whose team-mates hadn't even won a single race (and some never won a single one in their entire F1 career) before joining Benetton and Ferrari, well then one can say that Prost certainly went up against tougher competition. The reason Prost never was that popular is probably because he was "too perfect". He was a clinical driver who drove smart. People notice the likes of Gilles Villeneuve, Stefan Bellof and Ayrton Senna because they drove like their lives depended on them winning a race and didn't seem to know any limits... But a wise man must always know his limitations...

ya so still 7 for the shoe master

@@samsav2866 exactly

Except, he did, and it doesn't matter if it would've changed or not

He would be champion at suzuka so. Jerez would not have happened.

@@samsav2866 *shoemaker

This is what is mentioned at 0:34

Nah the current system is very messy. It looks ugly when the top 5 is: 1 - 367.5 points 2 - 345 points 3 - 301.5 points 4 - 263 points 5 - 170 points

still is... not dead yet, actually in good shape!

And that's what makes Senna superior and greater.

@@michaeltrumph121 that is completely subjective though. Sometimes being faster does not equal being better

@@motorsportfanboy7769 Of course it does. The fastest out there is the best.

@@michaeltrumph121 the one who wins more is the best. You don't have to be faster to win.

@@gowrishankarkn1465 One can win more simply cause he has the best car

That means also including Indianapolis 500

Bit late to comment on this, but I think Damon Hill had the skills to put a Newey-Williams onto the top. That said, while most Newey cars are time machines, SOME of them turn out to be quite the opposite, like the MP4-18. Don't get me wrong, I do think Adrian Newey is one of the best engineers in F1 history (The GOAT being Colin Chapman), but even he makes mistakes sometimes. So there's still a (small) chance Hill might've found himself in a shitbox after all.

then consistency wouldn't matter as much as it does now, so cars would be a lot faster, but quite unreliable

@@Inferiis So you're saying Lotus would've completely dominated? 😉

@@Inferiis I think with the old point system consistency was more important, than with the new system, with the new system winning is important.

with the 50s point system a newey designed car would almost guaranteed win both championship

well, login

Belgium's gain, Austria's pain...

At least, Niki Lauda became Austria's 1st and only World Champion!

Ooof

Just imagine... All of France (especially near the Eiffel Tower in Paris) would've partied hard when Alain Prost claimed his 1st title in 1983!

It was under 1k only two weeks ago!

Thats what I was thinking. It blows my mind how people like him that do all this work and make super in depth videos have a super low amount of viewers and subs, but people just dance on other channels and get millions.

I agree, it's like when people claim if Senna would have survived Imola in 1994 he would have won the title based on the fact Hill only lost by a point, ignoring the fact Schumacher was disqualified from 2 races and banned from another 2, incidents which probably wouldn't have happened if Senna was around.

Are you suggesting we change the outcome then?

​@@laughing5752​: It's logical to do so. Example, why would Prost be desperate to crash into Senna in 1989 had he sealed the Title already? Same goes to Schumacher's 1997 DSQ because what is the point of defending seven Points when you had a 24 Points lead? It's a fun What-Ifs scenario but once you left out all the logic, then it was senseless doing it.

@@ChiBi_JKT48 Exactly, with Prost clinching early, there is no shunt at the Suzuka chicane…and then Senna would not have been pissed the next year. Prost’s Ferrari probably would have won at Suzuki (he was on a roll) and could have had WC#8

@@andrewschuster4772: Exactly my point. There's no need for those actions had the Title sealed already. Again, past results are there and we can't change it, but if you toyed around the outcome based on What-Ifs like these, then you had to consider the What-Ifs in the actions leading to it.

I still don't think adding a what if to a what if scenario is a good idea, I think that the what if is clear cut and is going off the completed outcomes regardless if something else may of happened as we have no way to tell, but you make a point

i mean MSC would won the 1994, because there is no need to push after the Spanish GP,overtake Hill twice in formation lap, getting DSQ from 1/4 races from the whole season, FIA tried to do this season more interesting and exciting by slowing down one team and driver.

Why wouldn't have Hamilton won 7 titles? He won those using the same points except in '08

Hamilton winning 6 titles with the current system which went through no changes at all in this concept is definitely the key to him "still winning 7 titles". How about taking someone into account who won their titles without the current system?

He had some great overtakes and clawing through the field earlier in his career. There were few times he put one over Senna. He was no slouch a very underrated driver.

@@srxt6758 he drove to the numbers, hence why he beat Mansell and Piquet in '86 but if he needed to, he could fight with the best (and win)

Who is your favourite Australian driver

@@thechineserussian In Formula 1 Mark Webber but i think Oscar Piastri will do really well if he gets the right car

Exactly thankyou

With the way that Schumacher drove, there is no guarantee that he still wouldn't have done that anyway. Since there is no way to prove or disprove, of course it makes sense to keep the DSQ.

@@dionscarman1650 I'm not quite sure why people think that because of the disqualified happening and what ifs that the outcome should be changed, that's plain stupidity. But they have a point in the sense that if the Morden system was what they use if may not happen. But that's the thing it's a "What if"

How many times does it have to be repeated: It. Doesn’t. Matter. We can speculate all day about what would’ve happened, but that’s not what the point of the video is. The point of the video is using the current points system based off race results, not trying to figure out how that would change things. Idk why this has to be beaten into so many people’s heads. If you want to speculate do it on your own.

I actually saw a video on this not too long ago. Winner gets 50pts and 20th gets 1. But then there’s an even points spread all the way down the ranks

Also back in the days. No one competed in Indy 500 and it was actually classified as an F1 race. That's why you got a lot of the Indy Winners who got points but never raced an European Race as well.

It's cause of reliability, back then there'd be many DNFs so doing this helped drivers who performed well but got unlucky

And claiming his 1st and only title after winning the inaugural Malaysian Grand Prix in 1999 was something very special!

If it happened, it could only be 2017 because that's the only year he didn't have a retirement.

Niki Lauda average quali place in 84 was 8th whilst Prost had 3 poles. So most of the races he spent fighting from the back to win and finish on the podium. He drove his best that year like a true tactician.

That's why their points average is on that list too :)

I think it's time that points should be awarded in the inverse to the number of cars that finish a race . Twentieth gets one point and first gets 20. Fastest lap goes to the fastest finisher regardless of position as long as they finish. If only six cars finish points are 6-1, first to last plus fastest lap. That way even rookies can get a point or two for trying instead of going a couple of years and never scoring a point. Makes the constructors championship fairer as well. Just MHO.

@@ronwilken5219 Why would the front runners be punished because some random team can't build a car and constantly retire from the race?

@@jkliao6486 who's punishing the leaders. Read my post again. Award points to all "finishers". Last gets one point first gets one for every car that finishes. If twenty finish the leader gets twenty points. No penalty. So it's not twenty five as it is now but at least all teams get something for their trouble during the year instead of nothing. Then when the FIA cash is handed out all get something and more than the point they have a feeling of having achieved something. Now a zero is a zero and very discouraging. Just my opinion but I don't see anyone getting punished.

@@ronwilken5219 So because two backmarkers retired, the leader only got 18 points even though those two backmarkers retiring has nothing to do with the leaders? Do you have any basic logic? If you can't read my post then don't comment.

Then how do you calculate it? This isn't the calculate each year and speculate how each grand prix went show

Or nando would have won 2012 if not for spa

Except he often was the fastest driver of the day in race trim. He beats Senna in fastest laps set head to head when they were teammates for two years.

41 fastest laps mean Prost was often the fastest on race day. People underate Prost's speed

@@longde Honestly, Prost only got those fastest laps when he was driving the best car, which is often the case with awarding the fastest lap; however, there are some drivers who were capable of putting a car on pole, winning races, and getting the fastest lap of a race with cars that not even their own technical directors expected could be achieved with them. Drivers such as Jim Clark, Niki Lauda, Nigel Mansel Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher... we're well known for squeezing more out of their cars than anyone expected. The most dramatic example of this is Schumacher in the 1996 Ferrari. It was arguably the worst car in the field that year. A piece of junk. It was the least aerodynamic; handled like a stuck pig; and was ugly, to boot. Between Eddie Irvine and Schumacher, they chalked up 18 DNF's in 16 races; and yet, Schumacher finished 3rd in the standings, securing 2nd place in the constructors championship, behind Williams (who enjoyed a vastly superior car); and ahead of his old team, Benetton (for whom he won the championship the previous year; and would have won again in '96, had he remained at Benetton). Despite having to fight his own car all the way, he managed two fastest laps that year: One at the Spanish GP, which was a master class of wet weather driving (possibly the greatest wet weather drive of all time); and the other at Monza, which was even more surprising, because it was a dry race. Granted, Hill and Alesi both hit the tyre barriers, but so did Schumacher; and again there were much faster cars that finished behind him.