I'm surprised no one has brought up JV's championship of 1997. One of my friends tried to argue it was a fluke championship.lol
Same with some arguements on Rosberg and even Phil Hill.
All of these drivers with these WDC simply was the class of the field of that season. No matter how it is won, it is a WDC for that driver. Some may say they are won on luck, etc. Still, it is set in stone and no one can take that away, reguardless of the haters or antics.
All are proven drivers and were the best that season. Simple.
What's with all the hate nowdays and trash talk of "unproven" WDCs or winners? Some people (the videogame generation?) nowdays seem to lack any perspective to the sport and forget that even being an F1 driver let alone a race winner or a WDC is much more than most of us here will ever achieve in our lives. So in that sense the image of some (proven?) armchair critic dissing WDCs simply because he thinks he knows better kind of makes me chuckle.
As I've said before, a WDC is a WDC, deal with it. History books 1 - Critical opinions 0.
I don't agree that a WDC winner won because they were the 'class of the field' but they won because they and their car were the best car/driver combination that season, in terms of speed, consistency, reliability etc.
Still, I find it virtually impossible to argue that any WDC is 'undeserving' or 'unworthy'. Maybe some WDCs were less worthy than others, or maybe there were better drivers in one particular year, but I think it's quite ignorant to dismiss a WDC entirely. Those who win have to perform consistently through an entire season, and it takes some talent and some mental strength to be able to do that, to deal with obstacles such as bad luck and mistakes.
Good example of that is Vettel in 2010, some argue that he was unworthy because he made so many mistakes, but the way he bounced back in the last five races was incredible. He won three races, second in Singapore and a win lost to engine failure in Korea. He showed far more mental strength than I've ever seen from any of the current field including Schumacher. And he was just 22.
Some other drivers may not perform to the best of their talents (JV '97, Hakkinen '99, arguably Schumacher '03) but still win the WDC anyway.
Also, you don't really need to be a complete driver to win a title. IMO Damon Hill wasn't, Button wasn't, nor was Vettel when he won his first. But Jenson and Vettel have improved a lot. I'd have said the same about Hamilton too before his bad season last year.
I'm sure I count as one of the 'playstation generation' but some of us have some perspective
I don't know so much about Phil Hill or the '61 season, but I'm sure that a large majority who argue against Rosberg's title say 'Oh Villeneuve died and Pironi crashed and Rosberg wouldn't have won without those two so he got lucky'. Their knowledge of '82 goes no further than that I'm sure. Keke's is actually one of the more impressive title victories. tl;dr Some champions are less impressive than others but that doesn't mean they were lucky, nor does it make them 'unworthy' or 'undeserving