Saw this image on Reddit and thought it was interesting - essentially, what would have happened if the last 3 races (as was Bernie's plan) had been worth double points throughout F1 history? please log in to view this image Some highlights: 1) Stirling Moss would have won a world championship (1959) 2) Graham Hill would have been a 3xWDC (but at the expense of Clark) 3) Gilles would have taken 1979 instead of Scheckter 4) Prost would have an extra WDC + Senna one less 5) Alonso would have won in 2012 Admittedly it suffers a bit from just blindly multiplying the results (for instance, given how early Ferrari instituted team orders in 1979, Gilles would still presumably have lost) and it's been raised that the creator may not have taken the "best x of y races" rule from previous years into account, but thought people might be interested.
I don't think the points system changed at all, solely because changing the entire points system would have affected a lot more of the results you'd have thought.
I guess it's too obvious to point out how Bernie's double points would have deprived Jochen Rindt. If someone has some spare time on New Year's Eve/Day, perhaps they could work out a table of champions for each year under all the various scoring regimes (how many different ones have there been?). Then we could see both which champions would have won under all scoring systems, and which scoring system most accurately reflects who we thing should have been champion in the more closely-fought years.
I like your first line there, PLC. In general though, I'm not keen on these retrospective studies. In any sport, the important thing is that competitors know what system is in place at the time they compete, and that all of them do so under the same rules at the time. Very rarely is there any benefit from these types of discussions, in my opinion.
