"Steve [cox] is wrong on a few counts"

typ2vw159 wrote: MXA what are thay trying to cover -up?Steve,s coment was right on the money. MXA why do you put shit on the internet you got a shitty mag to put your crap talk in.But you chosse the internet. And don,t awnser this you chicken ass mag.

typ2vw159 wrote: MXA what are thay trying to cover -up?Steve,s coment was right on the money. MXA why do you put shit on the internet you got a shitty mag to put your crap talk in.But you chosse the internet. And don,t awnser this you chicken ass mag.

typ2vw159 wrote: MXA what are thay trying to cover -up?Steve,s coment was right on the money. MXA why do you put shit on the internet you got a shitty mag to put your crap talk in.But you chosse the internet. And don,t awnser this you chicken ass mag.

alphado wrote: Hall of Fame?

alphado wrote: Hall of Fame?

BIGHEAD1 wrote: Uh Oh
http://www.motocrossactionmag.com/...471FBF60A1FF30E0F6FE

P wrote: The comment about Cox sounded like a message board post......................


P

P wrote: The comment about Cox sounded like a message board post......................


P

Grendel wrote: Guys, we all know "Zap". He's good people.

Grendel wrote: Guys, we all know "Zap". He's good people.

typ2vw159 wrote: MXA what are thay trying to cover -up?Steve,s coment was right on the money. MXA why do you put shit on the internet you got a shitty mag to put your crap talk in.But you chosse the internet. And don,t awnser this you chicken ass mag.

WORCSRacer wrote: IMO, MXA is spot on. How many chances do they really deserve? Hepler's comment about only jumping on a SX ride if the money is right is laughable and down right arrogant. How long would their problems and antics lasted in the NFL? These guys are supposed to be PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES and they have failed to provide an adequate ROI.

Hepler and HIll had their shot and regardless of the reasons they FAILED. Time to move on and if you really want to point fingers, add in Langston and you can see the reasons for Yamaha's new direction in racing.

WORCSRacer wrote: IMO, MXA is spot on. How many chances do they really deserve? Hepler's comment about only jumping on a SX ride if the money is right is laughable and down right arrogant. How long would their problems and antics lasted in the NFL? These guys are supposed to be PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES and they have failed to provide an adequate ROI.

Hepler and HIll had their shot and regardless of the reasons they FAILED. Time to move on and if you really want to point fingers, add in Langston and you can see the reasons for Yamaha's new direction in racing.

rc4187 wrote: Gotta say I agree with MXA on that issue.

rc4187 wrote: Gotta say I agree with MXA on that issue.

Adam43 wrote: Fair assessment I thought. I can see both Steve's and MXAs side.

I don't think a guy should just get unlimited chances, but I think L&M sees Hill as a project with a ton of upside. If they aren't paying him much, and he straightens his program out and rides to his potential, then its win-win for them.

Adam43 wrote: Fair assessment I thought. I can see both Steve's and MXAs side.

I don't think a guy should just get unlimited chances, but I think L&M sees Hill as a project with a ton of upside. If they aren't paying him much, and he straightens his program out and rides to his potential, then its win-win for them.

GuyB wrote: The only thing I'll drop in here is, when you're calling out someone, I think it's fair game that they put their byline on it. Not just an anonymous MXA.

GuyB wrote: The only thing I'll drop in here is, when you're calling out someone, I think it's fair game that they put their byline on it. Not just an anonymous MXA.

GuyB wrote: The only thing I'll drop in here is, when you're calling out someone, I think it's fair game that they put their byline on it. Not just an anonymous MXA.

Grendel wrote: That's only unacceptable on a message board.

Grendel wrote: That's only unacceptable on a message board.

newmann wrote: MXA is on the money with the Hill and Hepler comments. Both great riders, but enough is enough. They need to earn their spots back after some of the stuff they've either pulled or suffered through. If they are as good as they are capable of being, they'll be fine. If not, they'll get a job elsewhere.

As for Nerd, he's a big boy. He'll be fine. He has no problems calling people out, even if he's wrong or doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't need us to fight this trivial comment for him. I just renewed my subscription to MXA the other day for two years after letting it lapse for too long a time. Bought a project bike a few weeks back and dug out all my MXA mags for the latter part of 2001 and most of 2002 to get the scoop on the bike I bought. Tests, shootouts, comparisons, settings, fixes, issues, products to make it better........you name it, it was there. None of the other mags offer the insight into the bikes and products from a racers standpoint than MXA. Hands down, the best motocross mag from that standpoint. Racer X is also the best moto mag out there for different reasons. VMX Magazine from Australia has no competition, beautiful mag. All offer something different.

newmann wrote: MXA is on the money with the Hill and Hepler comments. Both great riders, but enough is enough. They need to earn their spots back after some of the stuff they've either pulled or suffered through. If they are as good as they are capable of being, they'll be fine. If not, they'll get a job elsewhere.

As for Nerd, he's a big boy. He'll be fine. He has no problems calling people out, even if he's wrong or doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't need us to fight this trivial comment for him. I just renewed my subscription to MXA the other day for two years after letting it lapse for too long a time. Bought a project bike a few weeks back and dug out all my MXA mags for the latter part of 2001 and most of 2002 to get the scoop on the bike I bought. Tests, shootouts, comparisons, settings, fixes, issues, products to make it better........you name it, it was there. None of the other mags offer the insight into the bikes and products from a racers standpoint than MXA. Hands down, the best motocross mag from that standpoint. Racer X is also the best moto mag out there for different reasons. VMX Magazine from Australia has no competition, beautiful mag. All offer something different.

GuyB wrote: I meant editorially.

GuyB wrote: I meant editorially.

GuyB wrote: The only thing I'll drop in here is, when you're calling out someone, I think it's fair game that they put their byline on it. Not just an anonymous MXA.

WORCSRacer wrote: You name names!


FTR, in their position I agree they need to put in a by line.

WORCSRacer wrote: You name names!


FTR, in their position I agree they need to put in a by line.

kcadrenalin wrote: Other than politics, science, and evolution, Cox is usually fairly accurate.

kcadrenalin wrote: Other than politics, science, and evolution, Cox is usually fairly accurate.

newmann wrote: MXA is on the money with the Hill and Hepler comments. Both great riders, but enough is enough. They need to earn their spots back after some of the stuff they've either pulled or suffered through. If they are as good as they are capable of being, they'll be fine. If not, they'll get a job elsewhere.

As for Nerd, he's a big boy. He'll be fine. He has no problems calling people out, even if he's wrong or doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't need us to fight this trivial comment for him. I just renewed my subscription to MXA the other day for two years after letting it lapse for too long a time. Bought a project bike a few weeks back and dug out all my MXA mags for the latter part of 2001 and most of 2002 to get the scoop on the bike I bought. Tests, shootouts, comparisons, settings, fixes, issues, products to make it better........you name it, it was there. None of the other mags offer the insight into the bikes and products from a racers standpoint than MXA. Hands down, the best motocross mag from that standpoint. Racer X is also the best moto mag out there for different reasons. VMX Magazine from Australia has no competition, beautiful mag. All offer something different.

Moto_Geek wrote: Actually that was the problem I had with the MXA, was basically just poor test/reviews. A true story. My friend bought the Honda CR250 the year MXA toughted as the best 2 stroke that year. We all really rely on these test as you can't really test ride a new bike.

Anyways, they toughted "monster horsepower" and it turned out to be the worst year ever for the CR250 no power and had lots of issues with bog.

Moto_Geek wrote: Actually that was the problem I had with the MXA, was basically just poor test/reviews. A true story. My friend bought the Honda CR250 the year MXA toughted as the best 2 stroke that year. We all really rely on these test as you can't really test ride a new bike.

Anyways, they toughted "monster horsepower" and it turned out to be the worst year ever for the CR250 no power and had lots of issues with bog.

GuyB wrote: The only thing I'll drop in here is, when you're calling out someone, I think it's fair game that they put their byline on it. Not just an anonymous MXA.

Clutchy wrote: Plus the fact that Cox had no opportunity to respond. They cut one opinion in one quote and directed three paragraphs at him. Shoty journalism at best. MXA is a mere shell of it's former self...


Its called Motocross action not "Test rider weekly" "Bike test weekly"... Personaly I stopped buying the mag because it became full of everything other then " Motocross Action"....!

Clutchy wrote: Plus the fact that Cox had no opportunity to respond. They cut one opinion in one quote and directed three paragraphs at him. Shoty journalism at best. MXA is a mere shell of it's former self...


Its called Motocross action not "Test rider weekly" "Bike test weekly"... Personaly I stopped buying the mag because it became full of everything other then " Motocross Action"....!

GuyB wrote: The only thing I'll drop in here is, when you're calling out someone, I think it's fair game that they put their byline on it. Not just an anonymous MXA.

Clutchy wrote: Plus the fact that Cox had no opportunity to respond. They cut one opinion in one quote and directed three paragraphs at him. Shoty journalism at best. MXA is a mere shell of it's former self...


Its called Motocross action not "Test rider weekly" "Bike test weekly"... Personaly I stopped buying the mag because it became full of everything other then " Motocross Action"....!

WORCSRacer wrote: Bullshit Cox can defend himself via his work at racer x if he so desires.

WORCSRacer wrote: Bullshit Cox can defend himself via his work at racer x if he so desires.

GuyB wrote: I meant editorially.

mxrose3 wrote: I still dig MXA, but I agree with you.

mxrose3 wrote: I still dig MXA, but I agree with you.

jndmx wrote: CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!

jndmx wrote: CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!

BIGHEAD1 wrote: Uh Oh
http://www.motocrossactionmag.com/...471FBF60A1FF30E0F6FE

Nerd wrote: That's awesome!

This is like when Fox talks crap about MSNBC or vice versa.

The funny part is that I was agreeing with, but paraphrasing what Larry Brooks said in the conversation that was taken from, and I think Brooks wears an orange helmet on occasion.

Awesome!

Nerd wrote: That's awesome!

This is like when Fox talks crap about MSNBC or vice versa.

The funny part is that I was agreeing with, but paraphrasing what Larry Brooks said in the conversation that was taken from, and I think Brooks wears an orange helmet on occasion.

Awesome!

Clutchy wrote: Plus the fact that Cox had no opportunity to respond. They cut one opinion in one quote and directed three paragraphs at him. Shoty journalism at best. MXA is a mere shell of it's former self...


Its called Motocross action not "Test rider weekly" "Bike test weekly"... Personaly I stopped buying the mag because it became full of everything other then " Motocross Action"....!

Trip wrote:
Clutchy wrote: Plus the fact that Cox had no opportunity to respond. They cut one opinion in one quote and directed three paragraphs at him. Shoty journalism at best. MXA is a mere shell of it's former self...


Wow, kinda reminds me of someone elses approach to writing..

Trip wrote:
Clutchy wrote: Plus the fact that Cox had no opportunity to respond. They cut one opinion in one quote and directed three paragraphs at him. Shoty journalism at best. MXA is a mere shell of it's former self...


Wow, kinda reminds me of someone elses approach to writing..

Trip wrote:
Clutchy wrote: Plus the fact that Cox had no opportunity to respond. They cut one opinion in one quote and directed three paragraphs at him. Shoty journalism at best. MXA is a mere shell of it's former self...


Wow, kinda reminds me of someone elses approach to writing..

jndmx wrote: Oh fuck not again......

jndmx wrote: Oh fuck not again......

BUTCH wrote: Can anyone explain what part of what Steve wrote that was not true about Josh and Broc? Seem to be spot on to me.

BUTCH wrote: Can anyone explain what part of what Steve wrote that was not true about Josh and Broc? Seem to be spot on to me.

zippy895 wrote: yes hepler should be on a performance based contract.
hill on the other hand,has to have a healthy back.if he rides 2010 like 2009,then,i feel he should go to school and get a career.you just cannot race that level and perform as a factory or privateer racer for that matter with a bad back.its just aint gunna happen.

zippy895 wrote: yes hepler should be on a performance based contract.
hill on the other hand,has to have a healthy back.if he rides 2010 like 2009,then,i feel he should go to school and get a career.you just cannot race that level and perform as a factory or privateer racer for that matter with a bad back.its just aint gunna happen.

Trip wrote:
Clutchy wrote: Plus the fact that Cox had no opportunity to respond. They cut one opinion in one quote and directed three paragraphs at him. Shoty journalism at best. MXA is a mere shell of it's former self...


Wow, kinda reminds me of someone elses approach to writing..

jndmx wrote: Oh fuck not again......

Trip wrote: I know I know...Just found it odd that he would use those words to describe MXA, when I have heard the exact same thing on here about someone else.. Guess the thought process changes depending on who your talking about..

Trip wrote: I know I know...Just found it odd that he would use those words to describe MXA, when I have heard the exact same thing on here about someone else.. Guess the thought process changes depending on who your talking about..

kcadrenalin wrote: Other than politics, science, and evolution, Cox is usually fairly accurate.

Void Main wrote: Heh heh, that would make a good tag line.

Void Main wrote: Heh heh, that would make a good tag line.

Nerd wrote: Put it this way: Some riders get too many chances, like maybe Josh Hansen. Although without the two-straight X Games wins, Hansen would be gone from the sport right now. Hansen's a great guy and he's very nice, but I don't think people deserve limitless chances.

However, at the same time, this will be Josh Hill's SECOND chance.

And I also don't think equating the amount of money Josh Hill made with Yamaha to his maturity level is a smart comparison. If anything, I think giving a teenager a ton of money can make them for more immature. It's the opposite effect. So when Zap (who I love) says, "Another key point is that unlike most teenagers (at least myself and the teenagers I grew up with) who screwed up and maybe lost their weekly allowance, Josh Hill has been rolling to the races as a professional athlete making a six digit salary. You'd think that if the kid was happy to accept a grown-up salary that he'd feel compelled to act like an adult, or at least a responsible teenager!"

That, in my opinion, is the king of faulty logic. What does being able to ride a dirt bike fast, and getting a lot of money, have to do with maturity level? How are these two things related?

In the NFL, you must be a minimum of three years out of high school in order to even sign a contract there. In other words, NFL players are 21 at minimum when they hit the field in the NFL for the first time. Josh Hill was 16. James Stewart is only 23! How long has he been around now? He's 23 years old.

Expecting that a kid is going to just magically become "mature" purely because he's getting a lot of money to race dirt bikes is ridiculous. And as I said, if anything the opposite is the case. As a rebellious teenager, one severe limiting factor of the amount of trouble you can get into is that you're broke. Give a kid a few hundred thousand dollars in that situation and see what happens.

The problem with the "walking in other people's shoes" perspective is that many people, including I think Zap in this situation, don't completely wear the shoes. On one hand, he tries to relate to Hill, but what he doesn't do is completely BECOME Josh Hill. To walk in someone's shoes, you can't keep YOUR age and YOUR experience and YOUR background, you have to take THEIRS. And if you were raised in a motorhome on the road going from amateur race to amateur race, never went to school as an adolescent, were sheltered from just about everything outside of the race track, etc., and then you were given a bunch of money and freedom from your parents, you would be a complete train wreck. Nearly all of us would be. And if you say you wouldn't, well, you're failing to completely wear his shoes again.

Josh Hill is a really good kid, and he shouldn't be "guilty by association" to Jason Lawrence. As a teenager at school, I hung out with the musicians most of the time, and ALL of them smoked pot and drank. I still haven't ever tried pot and I didn't have my first drink of alcohol until I was 23. It would've been foolish for people to conclude my behavior was consistent with theirs simply because I hung around with them.

Same goes for Hill.

Besides, the one thing about this sport is that results don't lie. You can complain about how many chances any number of guys have gotten, but ultimately if they still beat everyone else, they'll continue having more chances because racing is about results. Period. And you can't fake those.

Nerd wrote: Put it this way: Some riders get too many chances, like maybe Josh Hansen. Although without the two-straight X Games wins, Hansen would be gone from the sport right now. Hansen's a great guy and he's very nice, but I don't think people deserve limitless chances.

However, at the same time, this will be Josh Hill's SECOND chance.

And I also don't think equating the amount of money Josh Hill made with Yamaha to his maturity level is a smart comparison. If anything, I think giving a teenager a ton of money can make them for more immature. It's the opposite effect. So when Zap (who I love) says, "Another key point is that unlike most teenagers (at least myself and the teenagers I grew up with) who screwed up and maybe lost their weekly allowance, Josh Hill has been rolling to the races as a professional athlete making a six digit salary. You'd think that if the kid was happy to accept a grown-up salary that he'd feel compelled to act like an adult, or at least a responsible teenager!"

That, in my opinion, is the king of faulty logic. What does being able to ride a dirt bike fast, and getting a lot of money, have to do with maturity level? How are these two things related?

In the NFL, you must be a minimum of three years out of high school in order to even sign a contract there. In other words, NFL players are 21 at minimum when they hit the field in the NFL for the first time. Josh Hill was 16. James Stewart is only 23! How long has he been around now? He's 23 years old.

Expecting that a kid is going to just magically become "mature" purely because he's getting a lot of money to race dirt bikes is ridiculous. And as I said, if anything the opposite is the case. As a rebellious teenager, one severe limiting factor of the amount of trouble you can get into is that you're broke. Give a kid a few hundred thousand dollars in that situation and see what happens.

The problem with the "walking in other people's shoes" perspective is that many people, including I think Zap in this situation, don't completely wear the shoes. On one hand, he tries to relate to Hill, but what he doesn't do is completely BECOME Josh Hill. To walk in someone's shoes, you can't keep YOUR age and YOUR experience and YOUR background, you have to take THEIRS. And if you were raised in a motorhome on the road going from amateur race to amateur race, never went to school as an adolescent, were sheltered from just about everything outside of the race track, etc., and then you were given a bunch of money and freedom from your parents, you would be a complete train wreck. Nearly all of us would be. And if you say you wouldn't, well, you're failing to completely wear his shoes again.

Josh Hill is a really good kid, and he shouldn't be "guilty by association" to Jason Lawrence. As a teenager at school, I hung out with the musicians most of the time, and ALL of them smoked pot and drank. I still haven't ever tried pot and I didn't have my first drink of alcohol until I was 23. It would've been foolish for people to conclude my behavior was consistent with theirs simply because I hung around with them.

Same goes for Hill.

Besides, the one thing about this sport is that results don't lie. You can complain about how many chances any number of guys have gotten, but ultimately if they still beat everyone else, they'll continue having more chances because racing is about results. Period. And you can't fake those.

oldx wrote: I get so tired of Jody being a little bitch, I think Nerd should slap the shit outta him. We'll all stand around and shout bitch fight, bitch fight!

oldx wrote: I get so tired of Jody being a little bitch, I think Nerd should slap the shit outta him. We'll all stand around and shout bitch fight, bitch fight!