23 Jun 2012 – Hamilton Wins in Canada as F1 Remains Unpredictable
Lewis Hamilton won the Grand Prix of Canada two weekends ago, thereby becoming the F1 2012 season’s seventh different race winner in seven Grands Prix. Not since the 1982 F1 season has there been so many winners in a season.
Of course, in 1982 ELEVEN drivers won at least one Grand Prix, with no driver winning more than two.
Thirty years on, it looks somewhat unlikely that we’ll see eleven different drivers win a race. However, given the current unpredictability of the 2012 season, who’s to say that we won’t be adding on to the list of seven?
In my mind, there remain three more viable candidates to win at least one race, and two long shots. The Lotus drivers, Kimi Raikkonen and Romain Grosjean, have been threatening to join the list of race winners at various points in the season. Seven-time F1 drivers’ world champion Michael Schumacher in his Mercedes has also been strong, at least in qualifying; curiously, Schumacher’s race performances have been a little muted, though it must be said that he has been the victim of a few mechanical maladies in his Mercedes (perhaps this is just Karmic payback for all his years racing in bulletproof Ferraris?). The Sauber pair, Japan’s Kamui Kobayashi and Mexico’s Sergio Perez, are also possible winners, but given their team’s budgetary limitations they may run out of effective car developments well before their other co-contenders do (especially the bigger, more wealthy teams). Perez, in particular, has been hugely impressive, able to run at a strong pace without destroying his tires. Fellow grid minnow Williams Grand Prix (the old-school F1 fan in me just grimaced typing that phrase) has already won a Grand Prix sans the benefit of a rain shower to mix up the running order (Pastor Maldonado in Spain), so who’s to say Sauber can’t turn the same trick at least once this year?
If Raikkonen, Grosjean, Schumacher, Kobayashi, and Perez all hit the lottery at some point in the 2012 season, that would mean we will have had twelve different drivers atop the podium. That would trump the 1982 season’s total by one.
And then there’s Felipe Massa. Though Massa’s been positively eclipsed at Ferrari by Fernando Alonso (who 1997 World Champion Jacques Villeneuve called F1’s “most complete driver” whilst he was a guest commentator on Sky F1’s coverage of the Canadian Grand Prix, an assessment I agree with 100%), the fact is he drives for Ferrari. While Massa’s form has been depressingly bad for most of this season, the Ferrari is a car that is improving with each and every race. Consequently, Massa’s performances have also begun a slow trend upwards as well. With a few lucky breaks, who knows?
But enough about speculating about what might happen later on in the year.
Lewis Hamilton had a very strong weekend in Montreal, setting the fastest time in the first two Free Practice sessions on Friday. He ultimately qualified in P2, though he was three-tenths of a second behind Sebastian Vettel’s pole-winning time.
At the start, Vettel converted his pole advantage into an immediate lead, with Hamilton and Alonso in his Ferrari in tow. Behind them, the pack stayed remarkably intact. Indeed, the first significant incident occurred on lap 5, when Massa squandered a strong start with a spin on the exit of Turn One.
The order at the front remained static, until Vettel called into the pits on lap 16 for a tire change. Hamilton, who trailed the two-time defending World Champion by about two seconds, followed into the pits a few laps later. Despite yet another less-than-smooth McLaren pit stop, Hamilton rejoined ahead of Vettel. Meanwhile, Alonso stayed out until lap 20, building a good margin over the erstwhile leaders Hamilton and Vettel. Alonso surrendered the lead to an impressive Romain Grosjean.
When all the significant stops were done, Hamilton led, with Alonso and Vettel scrapping over second place. The 2008 World Champion was running at a strong pace and was easing away from his immediate pursuers. As the race progressed, it became increasingly clear that Hamilton was on a different tire strategy compared to the battling double World Champions trailing in his wake.
On the fiftieth lap of seventy, Hamilton pitted for fresh tires. Yet again McLaren had a poor stop (what IS it with the team’s pit stops these days?!?), so all of Hamilton’s hard work building up a margin seemed to go to waste as both Alonso and Vettel passed him and dropped him down to third.
However, with his fresh rubber and long straights followed by heavy braking zones, Hamilton had plenty of extra performance in hand due to his newer Pirellis. He overtook first Vettel, and then Alonso, rather easily, seizing the lead that he kept until the checkered flag waved.
Meanwhile, both Alonso and Vettel continued to lose pace. Not only did Hamilton leave them behind with imperious ease, but they were also getting caught from behind by Grosjean and Perez, both of whom also stopped for tires more than once. By this point, it was clear that the one-stop strategy used by Alonso and Vettel was the incorrect one, but only Red Bull made the adjustment and called Vettel in for newer rubber. Alonso’s pit crew never called him in, and so lost 8 World Championship points by finishing 5th (which earns 10pts) instead of 2nd (worth 18pts).
Hamilton thus became the 7th race winner in seven Grands Prix in 2012; Grosjean finished second, Perez third. Vettel initially dropped to fifth, but caught the badly struggling Alonso before the end of the race. Rosberg, Webber, Raikkonen, Kobayashi, and Massa rounded out the rest of the top ten. Jenson Button, meanwhile, finished one lap behind his teammate in a pathetic 16th place.
And so the F1 circus moves on to the European Grand Prix, held on the harbor-side street circuit in Valencia, Spain.
Will we see an eighth different winner this year?
Or will we see our first repeat visitor to the top step of the podium?
10 Jun 2012 – Boxing Killed by Split Decision
Here I am, almost two hours after the fight ended, and I still can’t believe it.
Timothy Bradley “beat” Manny Pacquiao after twelve rounds in their WBO welterweight title fight. Two out of the three judges awarded Bradley, the challenger, the win in what is surely one of the most controversial boxing matches of all time.
It’s certainly the one that makes the least sense to me.
The only one that remotely comes close in my mind is the Hagler-Leonard fight from 1987. I saw that fight on television with my father, and though I was all of twelve years old at the time it seemed clear to me (as it did to my dad) that Hagler won that fight.
The Pacquiao-Bradley fight was nothing like the Hagler-Leonard fight.
The Hagler-Leonard fight was close. It even looked like a close contest, with Leonard winning the early rounds, then Hagler coming back stronger and more aggressively the longer the fight went on. Then, as I maintain to this day, it looked to me that Hagler won more rounds, earned more points, by hitting the harder punches, hitting more punches, basically out-working Leonard. In contrast, Leonard held and clinched Hagler far more, tactics that tired and outclassed fighters usually employ to save themselves from getting hit more often that they already are.
I still remember the outrage my twelve year-old self felt when the ring announcer delivered the judges’ scorecards.
But the Pacquiao-Bradley fight…
Incomprehensible.
I’d love to know precisely what criteria boxing judges use when they do their job when the fighters’ fists don’t do the job and deliver a clear-cut decision.
How does one fighter win a particular round?
Is it by the number of punches hit? By that measure, Pacquiao won easily, 253-159. That’s a margin of almost 100 punches over twelve rounds.
Is it by the number of “power punches” hit? By that metric, Pacquiao won easily too, 190-108. That’s a difference of 82 power shots over twelve rounds in Pacquiao’s favor.
The only stat Bradley had the edge over Pacquiao was in punches thrown, 839-751. This might suggest that he was the more aggressive fighter, but this interpretation would only hold true over the last two or three rounds, when Pacquiao had obviously backed off the gas and was basically coasting towards the end. That’s smart boxing in most cases: Why expose yourself to the risk of leaving yourself open to a potential knockout by staying aggressive when you believe you were winning the fight and had earned enough points via rounds won?
Judging just by what my eyes told me, the winner of the Pacquiao-Bradley fight was very clear to see.
Even my baby sister saw it clearly. She said that Pacquiao was completely controlling the pace of the fight. Absolutely true. He was the aggressor for most of the fight.
To be perfectly honest, I had no rooting interest in the fight. In the interest of full disclosure, I want to say that although I am a Filipino just as Pacquiao is, I thought Bradley was going to win this fight. I told friends at work that, and I told my family the same on Saturday hours before the fight.
I simply thought that Bradley would win because he is younger, is a strong fighter, and is probably hungrier than Pacquiao is.
I honestly had no investment, whether emotional or financial (I don’t gamble money on sports – I can’t afford it), in the outcome of this fight. I would have been indifferent no matter who won a fair contest.
But NOTHING irritates me more than something that is unfair and unjust.
And I wasn’t alone, insofar as the Pacquiao-Bradley fight was concerned.
The fans’ reactions, whether we’re talking about the ones who watched live in Las Vegas or the ones who bought the fight at home (no, I didn’t see the fight via pay-per-view), is near unanimous in the condemnation for the judges’ verdict. The split decision was also condemned by every single commentator from the press that I follow on Twitter (for whatever that’s worth).
So many people saw the fight the same way as I saw it.
The wrong man won the fight and the WBO title, and he won it in the worst possible way.
He didn’t earn it.
Instead, the sport of boxing earned all the vitriol heaped upon it amidst allegations of corruption.
As Tim Kawakami of the MercuryNews.com Tweeted then later wrote on his blog, “If you can’t trust the outcome, can you go back to the sport?”
If the answer to Tim Kawakami’s question is “No,” well…
leave a comment