Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam43
Notably, many not called Grand Prix.
This is another example of a simple pedantic view fails to show understanding.
Show much other stuff we could go into that means that just because there were some other races in 1950 does nothing to demonstrate whether 24 races is saturation in 2023.
The cars, the media, the championship, the entrants, etc.. almost so obvious none of it needs saying.
|
I see you have again decided to ignore the context and intent behind a post to try and score points from me.
Look back at what I posted on the subject:
'Just an observation (if 24 is considered too many) - how many F1 races were held in 1950?'
'It's just an observation that there were sometimes as many GPs around that time as we have today. 1949 had 27 Grand Prix races for example.
I just thought it interesting amongst the opinion that 24 races 'dilutes the value of the GP'.'
'I agree - it is not entirely comparable. As I say, just an observation'
You repeatedly ignored the point that I was just making an observation, not making any claim that the situations are comparable or identical.
I was also not the poster that brought into the discussion any issues surrounding the countries that host races, I was making observations based on the quantity of races. Another poster raised the HR issue, with a very specific quantity of venues that should be excluded. I queried the justification behind those six specifically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadrun96
Excluding the fact that graph is basically warmed garbage and cherry picked data that actually doesn't show anything about a government but rather how those chosen to draw the data wish to be controlled. If you're going to bring to pretend your bringing facts at least understand how your data is drawn
|
I agree with you here - the point I was trying to make (poorly it seems) when I queried which were the six races that had been included along with the USA as not being suitable for F1. This is one example of why, when making such claims, you have to understand the context within which they are made.
If I refer back to the original statement -
'There are six races which should not appear due to human rights issues, plus those in the USA.' - perhaps a more appropriate question would be simply to ask: "how did you reach the conclusion over which six races plus the USA should be removed from the calendar?"