Start_new_topic

Participating Members

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

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

WORCSRacer Posts: 1892 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: Clovis, CA	11/4/2009 9:49 AM Edited Date/Time: 11/4/2009 9:50 AM 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. WORCSRacer wrote: All the more reason that a guy like Andrew Short ought to be hailed as a model athlete and a role model. Spendng hundreds and hundreds of thousands dollars to sign a teenager to a contract is foolish and this industry seems to have no shortage of fools. You have to tend to your farm and Yamaha is jut another in the long line that hasn't shown the ability to do this. Hill maybe the nicest person in the world but he needed his inner circle and Yamaha to "coach him" two years ago when he was a lardass fucking around with JLaw instead of getting the job he was paid to do done. In the end thank you to Josh, Broc and Grant for helping to change the way Yamaha does business in racing. They seem to realize their core competence is not rider development and have re-focused on building great bikes. Quote Last Post Only WORCSRacer wrote: All the more reason that a guy like Andrew Short ought to be hailed as a model athlete and a role model. Spendng hundreds and hundreds of thousands dollars to sign a teenager to a contract is foolish and this industry seems to have no shortage of fools. You have to tend to your farm and Yamaha is jut another in the long line that hasn't shown the ability to do this. Hill maybe the nicest person in the world but he needed his inner circle and Yamaha to "coach him" two years ago when he was a lardass fucking around with JLaw instead of getting the job he was paid to do done. In the end thank you to Josh, Broc and Grant for helping to change the way Yamaha does business in racing. They seem to realize their core competence is not rider development and have re-focused on building great bikes. Quote Last Post Only All the more reason that a guy like Andrew Short ought to be hailed as a model athlete and a role model. Spendng hundreds and hundreds of thousands dollars to sign a teenager to a contract is foolish and this industry seems to have no shortage of fools. You have to tend to your farm and Yamaha is jut another in the long line that hasn't shown the ability to do this. Hill maybe the nicest person in the world but he needed his inner circle and Yamaha to "coach him" two years ago when he was a lardass fucking around with JLaw instead of getting the job he was paid to do done. In the end thank you to Josh, Broc and Grant for helping to change the way Yamaha does business in racing. They seem to realize their core competence is not rider development and have re-focused on building great bikes.
DL Posts: 349 Joined: 8/20/2006 Location: Menifee, CA	11/4/2009 9:50 AM 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. DL wrote: Good job, well done, could'nt agree more........ oh, what was your point? LOL. Seriously IMO Zap Nerd have valid opoinions. It's the nature of the sport and this kind of stuff fuels the message boards and the bench racing.......... it's all good. Quote Last Post Only DL wrote: Good job, well done, could'nt agree more........ oh, what was your point? LOL. Seriously IMO Zap Nerd have valid opoinions. It's the nature of the sport and this kind of stuff fuels the message boards and the bench racing.......... it's all good. Quote Last Post Only Good job, well done, could'nt agree more........ oh, what was your point? LOL. Seriously IMO Zap Nerd have valid opoinions. It's the nature of the sport and this kind of stuff fuels the message boards and the bench racing.......... it's all good.
Nerd Posts: 4319 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: , Moderator	11/4/2009 9:55 AM BIGHEAD1 wrote: Uh Oh http://www.motocrossactionmag.com/...471FBF60A1FF30E0F6FE 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. WORCSRacer wrote: All the more reason that a guy like Andrew Short ought to be hailed as a model athlete and a role model. Spendng hundreds and hundreds of thousands dollars to sign a teenager to a contract is foolish and this industry seems to have no shortage of fools. You have to tend to your farm and Yamaha is jut another in the long line that hasn't shown the ability to do this. Hill maybe the nicest person in the world but he needed his inner circle and Yamaha to "coach him" two years ago when he was a lardass fucking around with JLaw instead of getting the job he was paid to do done. In the end thank you to Josh, Broc and Grant for helping to change the way Yamaha does business in racing. They seem to realize their core competence is not rider development and have re-focused on building great bikes. 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. WORCSRacer wrote: All the more reason that a guy like Andrew Short ought to be hailed as a model athlete and a role model. Spendng hundreds and hundreds of thousands dollars to sign a teenager to a contract is foolish and this industry seems to have no shortage of fools. You have to tend to your farm and Yamaha is jut another in the long line that hasn't shown the ability to do this. Hill maybe the nicest person in the world but he needed his inner circle and Yamaha to "coach him" two years ago when he was a lardass fucking around with JLaw instead of getting the job he was paid to do done. In the end thank you to Josh, Broc and Grant for helping to change the way Yamaha does business in racing. They seem to realize their core competence is not rider development and have re-focused on building great bikes. Nerd wrote: Andrew Short is a model athlete and role model, but he wasn't brought in at 16 with a factory ride, nor did he show the kind of promise that warranted such treatment. And I'm sure Andrew will get at least one soon, but Josh Hill has something Andrew Short doesn't, and that's a 450cc Supercross victory. Quote Last Post Only Nerd wrote: Andrew Short is a model athlete and role model, but he wasn't brought in at 16 with a factory ride, nor did he show the kind of promise that warranted such treatment. And I'm sure Andrew will get at least one soon, but Josh Hill has something Andrew Short doesn't, and that's a 450cc Supercross victory. Quote Last Post Only Andrew Short is a model athlete and role model, but he wasn't brought in at 16 with a factory ride, nor did he show the kind of promise that warranted such treatment. And I'm sure Andrew will get at least one soon, but Josh Hill has something Andrew Short doesn't, and that's a 450cc Supercross victory.
Ozzy Posts: 498 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: ,	11/4/2009 10:02 AM Ozzy wrote: It really depends on the side your on. Fan, Insider, or both.......... Things happen. Things happen whether young or old. However, being young is what it is. As Cox said, we've seen this before, even if it involved ourselves growing up. The key thing here to remember is that once one turns PRO, becomes the rockstar, there's rules & expectations. Running it loosely only goes so far.......... In Hill's case exactly. In Hepler's, sure a different deal as injuries have devastated his career, yet one has to be smart about it, & Hep's statement about the money made me wonder. Maybe he just misspoke? Money before health? Health before money? Maybe he has hit it to much? For me, I'm a fan of both. I'd like to see Hill rebound. I believe he can & will. I'd like to see Hep as well, but his is a different deal. Money should be the last thing on his mind. That seems like commonsense, all things considered, & life's to short anyways, so being smart in ones recovery is key. For Hep, the bigger question is the next time. There will certainly be a next time. In his profession the odds are more towards that than not, so for him it's a medical question. How long can he push the odds. He's got good family/people around him so I trust he'll do the right thing. Again, I hope they both turn it around. Dave O. Ozzy wrote: It really depends on the side your on. Fan, Insider, or both.......... Things happen. Things happen whether young or old. However, being young is what it is. As Cox said, we've seen this before, even if it involved ourselves growing up. The key thing here to remember is that once one turns PRO, becomes the rockstar, there's rules & expectations. Running it loosely only goes so far.......... In Hill's case exactly. In Hepler's, sure a different deal as injuries have devastated his career, yet one has to be smart about it, & Hep's statement about the money made me wonder. Maybe he just misspoke? Money before health? Health before money? Maybe he has hit it to much? For me, I'm a fan of both. I'd like to see Hill rebound. I believe he can & will. I'd like to see Hep as well, but his is a different deal. Money should be the last thing on his mind. That seems like commonsense, all things considered, & life's to short anyways, so being smart in ones recovery is key. For Hep, the bigger question is the next time. There will certainly be a next time. In his profession the odds are more towards that than not, so for him it's a medical question. How long can he push the odds. He's got good family/people around him so I trust he'll do the right thing. Again, I hope they both turn it around. Dave O. Quote Last Post Only It really depends on the side your on. Fan, Insider, or both.......... Things happen. Things happen whether young or old. However, being young is what it is. As Cox said, we've seen this before, even if it involved ourselves growing up. The key thing here to remember is that once one turns PRO, becomes the rockstar, there's rules & expectations. Running it loosely only goes so far.......... In Hill's case exactly. In Hepler's, sure a different deal as injuries have devastated his career, yet one has to be smart about it, & Hep's statement about the money made me wonder. Maybe he just misspoke? Money before health? Health before money? Maybe he has hit it to much? For me, I'm a fan of both. I'd like to see Hill rebound. I believe he can & will. I'd like to see Hep as well, but his is a different deal. Money should be the last thing on his mind. That seems like commonsense, all things considered, & life's to short anyways, so being smart in ones recovery is key. For Hep, the bigger question is the next time. There will certainly be a next time. In his profession the odds are more towards that than not, so for him it's a medical question. How long can he push the odds. He's got good family/people around him so I trust he'll do the right thing. Again, I hope they both turn it around. Dave O.
newmann Posts: 1857 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: ,	11/4/2009 10:18 AM 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. 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. newmann wrote: Which year CR250 was that? That's what I'm working on. Quote Last Post Only newmann wrote: Which year CR250 was that? That's what I'm working on. Quote Last Post Only Which year CR250 was that? That's what I'm working on.
ISUCK@MX Posts: 13 Joined: 9/25/2009 Location: SHERIDAN, IN	11/4/2009 10:22 AM ISUCK@MX wrote: Well, I'm just local yokel slow old fart, but here is my opinion. In this era, MC, RC, CR, and JS, and others have set high standards. Maybe too high. But they are who the factories look for. Hell, even if that is too much of a stretch, you won't see Dungey, Pourcel, or Weimer screw it up for themselves. Some kids have it, some don't. The ones that do usually show it early on. ISUCK@MX wrote: Well, I'm just local yokel slow old fart, but here is my opinion. In this era, MC, RC, CR, and JS, and others have set high standards. Maybe too high. But they are who the factories look for. Hell, even if that is too much of a stretch, you won't see Dungey, Pourcel, or Weimer screw it up for themselves. Some kids have it, some don't. The ones that do usually show it early on. Quote Last Post Only Well, I'm just local yokel slow old fart, but here is my opinion. In this era, MC, RC, CR, and JS, and others have set high standards. Maybe too high. But they are who the factories look for. Hell, even if that is too much of a stretch, you won't see Dungey, Pourcel, or Weimer screw it up for themselves. Some kids have it, some don't. The ones that do usually show it early on.
500guy Posts: 2657 Joined: 8/15/2006 Location: Chandler, AZ	11/4/2009 10:31 AM 500guy wrote: Maybe the parents should think about letting them be kids when they are young so they are ready to handle themselves as Pro's ? Also I agree with the age being higher like football those three years mean a lot towards maturity. 500guy wrote: Maybe the parents should think about letting them be kids when they are young so they are ready to handle themselves as Pro's ? Also I agree with the age being higher like football those three years mean a lot towards maturity. Quote Last Post Only Maybe the parents should think about letting them be kids when they are young so they are ready to handle themselves as Pro's ? Also I agree with the age being higher like football those three years mean a lot towards maturity.
WORCSRacer Posts: 1892 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: Clovis, CA	11/4/2009 10:45 AM Edited Date/Time: 11/4/2009 10:46 AM ISUCK@MX wrote: Well, I'm just local yokel slow old fart, but here is my opinion. In this era, MC, RC, CR, and JS, and others have set high standards. Maybe too high. But they are who the factories look for. Hell, even if that is too much of a stretch, you won't see Dungey, Pourcel, or Weimer screw it up for themselves. Some kids have it, some don't. The ones that do usually show it early on. ISUCK@MX wrote: Well, I'm just local yokel slow old fart, but here is my opinion. In this era, MC, RC, CR, and JS, and others have set high standards. Maybe too high. But they are who the factories look for. Hell, even if that is too much of a stretch, you won't see Dungey, Pourcel, or Weimer screw it up for themselves. Some kids have it, some don't. The ones that do usually show it early on. WORCSRacer wrote: Anyone can understand some "growing pains" or "bad day" but at some point it isn't just youthful mistakes or lackluster results but instead a pattern of behavior. I.E. Josh Hill, JLaw, Hansen, Hamblin... Time to step aside for guys like Brayton, Hahn, Weimer, Georke ect... Quote Last Post Only WORCSRacer wrote: Anyone can understand some "growing pains" or "bad day" but at some point it isn't just youthful mistakes or lackluster results but instead a pattern of behavior. I.E. Josh Hill, JLaw, Hansen, Hamblin... Time to step aside for guys like Brayton, Hahn, Weimer, Georke ect... Quote Last Post Only Anyone can understand some "growing pains" or "bad day" but at some point it isn't just youthful mistakes or lackluster results but instead a pattern of behavior. I.E. Josh Hill, JLaw, Hansen, Hamblin... Time to step aside for guys like Brayton, Hahn, Weimer, Georke ect...
Nerd Posts: 4319 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: , Moderator	11/4/2009 10:50 AM ISUCK@MX wrote: Well, I'm just local yokel slow old fart, but here is my opinion. In this era, MC, RC, CR, and JS, and others have set high standards. Maybe too high. But they are who the factories look for. Hell, even if that is too much of a stretch, you won't see Dungey, Pourcel, or Weimer screw it up for themselves. Some kids have it, some don't. The ones that do usually show it early on. WORCSRacer wrote: Anyone can understand some "growing pains" or "bad day" but at some point it isn't just youthful mistakes or lackluster results but instead a pattern of behavior. I.E. Josh Hill, JLaw, Hansen, Hamblin... Time to step aside for guys like Brayton, Hahn, Weimer, Georke ect... ISUCK@MX wrote: Well, I'm just local yokel slow old fart, but here is my opinion. In this era, MC, RC, CR, and JS, and others have set high standards. Maybe too high. But they are who the factories look for. Hell, even if that is too much of a stretch, you won't see Dungey, Pourcel, or Weimer screw it up for themselves. Some kids have it, some don't. The ones that do usually show it early on. WORCSRacer wrote: Anyone can understand some "growing pains" or "bad day" but at some point it isn't just youthful mistakes or lackluster results but instead a pattern of behavior. I.E. Josh Hill, JLaw, Hansen, Hamblin... Time to step aside for guys like Brayton, Hahn, Weimer, Georke ect... Nerd wrote: Hey, if Hill goes out and beats all of those guys, should he still not have the ride over those guys? Quote Last Post Only Nerd wrote: Hey, if Hill goes out and beats all of those guys, should he still not have the ride over those guys? Quote Last Post Only Hey, if Hill goes out and beats all of those guys, should he still not have the ride over those guys?
Grendel Posts: 832 Joined: 5/17/2008 Location: ,	11/4/2009 10:52 AM Nerd wrote: Hey, if Hill goes out and beats all of those guys, should he still not have the ride over those guys? Nerd wrote: Hey, if Hill goes out and beats all of those guys, should he still not have the ride over those guys? Grendel wrote: No, because he's mean. Quote Last Post Only Grendel wrote: No, because he's mean. Quote Last Post Only No, because he's mean. Nerd wrote: "I don't think Grendel has ever actually been off his game."
zookrider62! Posts: 1715 Joined: 12/22/2008 Location: PLANO, TX	11/4/2009 10:56 AM ISUCK@MX wrote: Well, I'm just local yokel slow old fart, but here is my opinion. In this era, MC, RC, CR, and JS, and others have set high standards. Maybe too high. But they are who the factories look for. Hell, even if that is too much of a stretch, you won't see Dungey, Pourcel, or Weimer screw it up for themselves. Some kids have it, some don't. The ones that do usually show it early on. WORCSRacer wrote: Anyone can understand some "growing pains" or "bad day" but at some point it isn't just youthful mistakes or lackluster results but instead a pattern of behavior. I.E. Josh Hill, JLaw, Hansen, Hamblin... Time to step aside for guys like Brayton, Hahn, Weimer, Georke ect... ISUCK@MX wrote: Well, I'm just local yokel slow old fart, but here is my opinion. In this era, MC, RC, CR, and JS, and others have set high standards. Maybe too high. But they are who the factories look for. Hell, even if that is too much of a stretch, you won't see Dungey, Pourcel, or Weimer screw it up for themselves. Some kids have it, some don't. The ones that do usually show it early on. WORCSRacer wrote: Anyone can understand some "growing pains" or "bad day" but at some point it isn't just youthful mistakes or lackluster results but instead a pattern of behavior. I.E. Josh Hill, JLaw, Hansen, Hamblin... Time to step aside for guys like Brayton, Hahn, Weimer, Georke ect... zookrider62! wrote: I dont understand your arguement, 2 out of those 4 are on good teams, one had a factory ride and pissed it away. Why is stepping aside needed? Quote Last Post Only zookrider62! wrote: I dont understand your arguement, 2 out of those 4 are on good teams, one had a factory ride and pissed it away. Why is stepping aside needed? Quote Last Post Only I dont understand your arguement, 2 out of those 4 are on good teams, one had a factory ride and pissed it away. Why is stepping aside needed? Tbteam "Son, WHAT THE FUCK?"
googs the 2nd Posts: 57 Joined: 11/01/2009 Location: Kumchukka, ATF	11/4/2009 11:12 AM WORCSRacer wrote: Anyone can understand some "growing pains" or "bad day" but at some point it isn't just youthful mistakes or lackluster results but instead a pattern of behavior. I.E. Josh Hill, JLaw, Hansen, Hamblin... Time to step aside for guys like Brayton, Hahn, Weimer, Georke ect... WORCSRacer wrote: Anyone can understand some "growing pains" or "bad day" but at some point it isn't just youthful mistakes or lackluster results but instead a pattern of behavior. I.E. Josh Hill, JLaw, Hansen, Hamblin... Time to step aside for guys like Brayton, Hahn, Weimer, Georke ect... googs the 2nd wrote: Not sure why you would group hamblin with that crowd? did i miss something? Quote Last Post Only googs the 2nd wrote: Not sure why you would group hamblin with that crowd? did i miss something? Quote Last Post Only Not sure why you would group hamblin with that crowd? did i miss something?
GuyB Posts: 6182 Joined: 7/10/2006 Location: Costa Mesa, CA Administrator	11/4/2009 11:16 AM Grendel wrote: No, because he's mean. Grendel wrote: No, because he's mean. GuyB wrote: You want mean? This is mean. Quote Last Post Only GuyB wrote: You want mean? This is mean. Quote Last Post Only You want mean? This is mean.
shaner708 Posts: 310 Joined: 5/27/2009 Location: EXPORT, PA	11/4/2009 11:21 AM shaner708 wrote: Now why did they have to go talk shit on broc? He doesn't deserve good equipment? Hmm didn't he get a supercross podium this year before he was injured. The dude flat out flies and is always a lock to win at least one race (Steel City) as long as he is healthy. I have heard a rumor of Broc and Jeff Cernic teaming up for outdoors.. shaner708 wrote: Now why did they have to go talk shit on broc? He doesn't deserve good equipment? Hmm didn't he get a supercross podium this year before he was injured. The dude flat out flies and is always a lock to win at least one race (Steel City) as long as he is healthy. I have heard a rumor of Broc and Jeff Cernic teaming up for outdoors.. Quote Last Post Only Now why did they have to go talk shit on broc? He doesn't deserve good equipment? Hmm didn't he get a supercross podium this year before he was injured. The dude flat out flies and is always a lock to win at least one race (Steel City) as long as he is healthy. I have heard a rumor of Broc and Jeff Cernic teaming up for outdoors.. Anyone who thinks a 250f is better then my 250 2-banger cansay that to my roost as I pass them on a long uphill
zookrider62! Posts: 1715 Joined: 12/22/2008 Location: PLANO, TX	11/4/2009 11:25 AM shaner708 wrote: Now why did they have to go talk shit on broc? He doesn't deserve good equipment? Hmm didn't he get a supercross podium this year before he was injured. The dude flat out flies and is always a lock to win at least one race (Steel City) as long as he is healthy. I have heard a rumor of Broc and Jeff Cernic teaming up for outdoors.. shaner708 wrote: Now why did they have to go talk shit on broc? He doesn't deserve good equipment? Hmm didn't he get a supercross podium this year before he was injured. The dude flat out flies and is always a lock to win at least one race (Steel City) as long as he is healthy. I have heard a rumor of Broc and Jeff Cernic teaming up for outdoors.. zookrider62! wrote: because he hasnt completed a season in years (has he ever completed a season?) and he wants big money. They should have talked badly about him. Quote Last Post Only zookrider62! wrote: because he hasnt completed a season in years (has he ever completed a season?) and he wants big money. They should have talked badly about him. Quote Last Post Only because he hasnt completed a season in years (has he ever completed a season?) and he wants big money. They should have talked badly about him. Tbteam "Son, WHAT THE FUCK?"
oshow Posts: 1288 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: , Georgia	11/4/2009 11:29 AM oshow wrote: IMO MXA sucks, I don't even buy it in the airport when I don't have anything to read on a long flight. I would rather read People or trash like that. oshow wrote: IMO MXA sucks, I don't even buy it in the airport when I don't have anything to read on a long flight. I would rather read People or trash like that. Quote Last Post Only IMO MXA sucks, I don't even buy it in the airport when I don't have anything to read on a long flight. I would rather read People or trash like that.
googs the 2nd Posts: 57 Joined: 11/01/2009 Location: Kumchukka, ATF	11/4/2009 11:33 AM Edited Date/Time: 11/4/2009 11:34 AM googs the 2nd wrote: MXA is totally spot on...(assuming broc actually said what he said?) googs the 2nd wrote: MXA is totally spot on...(assuming broc actually said what he said?) Quote Last Post Only MXA is totally spot on...(assuming broc actually said what he said?)
zookrider62! Posts: 1715 Joined: 12/22/2008 Location: PLANO, TX	11/4/2009 11:40 AM Edited Date/Time: 11/4/2009 11:45 AM googs the 2nd wrote: MXA is totally spot on...(assuming broc actually said what he said?) googs the 2nd wrote: MXA is totally spot on...(assuming broc actually said what he said?) zookrider62! wrote: it's quoted from a TW interview "So you are not even going to bother riding any Supercross?" "No, unless someone has a good bit of money to throw around. If the right money is there maybe I’ll jump aboard. But right now I am just planning on staying in Pennsylvania, and will do some snow and woods riding with some tire studs this winter." Quote Last Post Only zookrider62! wrote: it's quoted from a TW interview "So you are not even going to bother riding any Supercross?" "No, unless someone has a good bit of money to throw around. If the right money is there maybe I’ll jump aboard. But right now I am just planning on staying in Pennsylvania, and will do some snow and woods riding with some tire studs this winter." Quote Last Post Only it's quoted from a TW interview "So you are not even going to bother riding any Supercross?" "No, unless someone has a good bit of money to throw around. If the right money is there maybe I’ll jump aboard. But right now I am just planning on staying in Pennsylvania, and will do some snow and woods riding with some tire studs this winter." Tbteam "Son, WHAT THE FUCK?"
googs the 2nd Posts: 57 Joined: 11/01/2009 Location: Kumchukka, ATF	11/4/2009 11:56 AM googs the 2nd wrote: shame for broc though , he's a good kid and very talented. Once you get a concussion the chances of getting another greatly increase and so on and so on. a rest from racing would be a blessing in disguise i think. googs the 2nd wrote: shame for broc though , he's a good kid and very talented. Once you get a concussion the chances of getting another greatly increase and so on and so on. a rest from racing would be a blessing in disguise i think. Quote Last Post Only shame for broc though , he's a good kid and very talented. Once you get a concussion the chances of getting another greatly increase and so on and so on. a rest from racing would be a blessing in disguise i think.
zookrider62! Posts: 1715 Joined: 12/22/2008 Location: PLANO, TX	11/4/2009 11:58 AM googs the 2nd wrote: shame for broc though , he's a good kid and very talented. Once you get a concussion the chances of getting another greatly increase and so on and so on. a rest from racing would be a blessing in disguise i think. googs the 2nd wrote: shame for broc though , he's a good kid and very talented. Once you get a concussion the chances of getting another greatly increase and so on and so on. a rest from racing would be a blessing in disguise i think. zookrider62! wrote: Hasnt he been on rest the last 3 years? Quote Last Post Only zookrider62! wrote: Hasnt he been on rest the last 3 years? Quote Last Post Only Hasnt he been on rest the last 3 years? Tbteam "Son, WHAT THE FUCK?"
googs the 2nd Posts: 57 Joined: 11/01/2009 Location: Kumchukka, ATF	11/4/2009 12:01 PM googs the 2nd wrote: shame for broc though , he's a good kid and very talented. Once you get a concussion the chances of getting another greatly increase and so on and so on. a rest from racing would be a blessing in disguise i think. zookrider62! wrote: Hasnt he been on rest the last 3 years? googs the 2nd wrote: shame for broc though , he's a good kid and very talented. Once you get a concussion the chances of getting another greatly increase and so on and so on. a rest from racing would be a blessing in disguise i think. zookrider62! wrote: Hasnt he been on rest the last 3 years? googs the 2nd wrote: ...not by choice i think......made of glass unfortunately...... Quote Last Post Only googs the 2nd wrote: ...not by choice i think......made of glass unfortunately...... Quote Last Post Only ...not by choice i think......made of glass unfortunately......
Grendel Posts: 832 Joined: 5/17/2008 Location: ,	11/4/2009 1:14 PM Grendel wrote: No, because he's mean. GuyB wrote: You want mean? This is mean. Grendel wrote: No, because he's mean. GuyB wrote: You want mean? This is mean. Grendel wrote: Damn that Hill! This must be that hoodlum Lawrence's influence! Quote Last Post Only Grendel wrote: Damn that Hill! This must be that hoodlum Lawrence's influence! Quote Last Post Only Damn that Hill! This must be that hoodlum Lawrence's influence! Nerd wrote: "I don't think Grendel has ever actually been off his game."
shaner708 Posts: 310 Joined: 5/27/2009 Location: EXPORT, PA	11/4/2009 1:34 PM zookrider62! wrote: because he hasnt completed a season in years (has he ever completed a season?) and he wants big money. They should have talked badly about him. zookrider62! wrote: because he hasnt completed a season in years (has he ever completed a season?) and he wants big money. They should have talked badly about him. shaner708 wrote: 2nd to Stewart in both series his rookie year, won about 3-6 races the next couple. I dont think he meant it like, "If it's not getting me rich I'm gonna take my ball and go home" I think it was meant to say "It's not worth risking the rest of my life unless the money is too much to turn down." That was my take on it Quote Last Post Only shaner708 wrote: 2nd to Stewart in both series his rookie year, won about 3-6 races the next couple. I dont think he meant it like, "If it's not getting me rich I'm gonna take my ball and go home" I think it was meant to say "It's not worth risking the rest of my life unless the money is too much to turn down." That was my take on it Quote Last Post Only 2nd to Stewart in both series his rookie year, won about 3-6 races the next couple. I dont think he meant it like, "If it's not getting me rich I'm gonna take my ball and go home" I think it was meant to say "It's not worth risking the rest of my life unless the money is too much to turn down." That was my take on it Anyone who thinks a 250f is better then my 250 2-banger cansay that to my roost as I pass them on a long uphill
zookrider62! Posts: 1715 Joined: 12/22/2008 Location: PLANO, TX	11/4/2009 1:37 PM zookrider62! wrote: because he hasnt completed a season in years (has he ever completed a season?) and he wants big money. They should have talked badly about him. shaner708 wrote: 2nd to Stewart in both series his rookie year, won about 3-6 races the next couple. I dont think he meant it like, "If it's not getting me rich I'm gonna take my ball and go home" I think it was meant to say "It's not worth risking the rest of my life unless the money is too much to turn down." That was my take on it zookrider62! wrote: because he hasnt completed a season in years (has he ever completed a season?) and he wants big money. They should have talked badly about him. shaner708 wrote: 2nd to Stewart in both series his rookie year, won about 3-6 races the next couple. I dont think he meant it like, "If it's not getting me rich I'm gonna take my ball and go home" I think it was meant to say "It's not worth risking the rest of my life unless the money is too much to turn down." That was my take on it zookrider62! wrote: I didnt take it that way, but it makes sense if that is how he meant it. Quote Last Post Only zookrider62! wrote: I didnt take it that way, but it makes sense if that is how he meant it. Quote Last Post Only I didnt take it that way, but it makes sense if that is how he meant it. Tbteam "Son, WHAT THE FUCK?"
ISUCK@MX Posts: 13 Joined: 9/25/2009 Location: SHERIDAN, IN	11/4/2009 1:59 PM ISUCK@MX wrote: Well, I'm just local yokel slow old fart, but here is my opinion. In this era, MC, RC, CR, and JS, and others have set high standards. Maybe too high. But they are who the factories look for. Hell, even if that is too much of a stretch, you won't see Dungey, Pourcel, or Weimer screw it up for themselves. Some kids have it, some don't. The ones that do usually show it early on. WORCSRacer wrote: Anyone can understand some "growing pains" or "bad day" but at some point it isn't just youthful mistakes or lackluster results but instead a pattern of behavior. I.E. Josh Hill, JLaw, Hansen, Hamblin... Time to step aside for guys like Brayton, Hahn, Weimer, Georke ect... Nerd wrote: Hey, if Hill goes out and beats all of those guys, should he still not have the ride over those guys? WORCSRacer wrote: Anyone can understand some "growing pains" or "bad day" but at some point it isn't just youthful mistakes or lackluster results but instead a pattern of behavior. I.E. Josh Hill, JLaw, Hansen, Hamblin... Time to step aside for guys like Brayton, Hahn, Weimer, Georke ect... Nerd wrote: Hey, if Hill goes out and beats all of those guys, should he still not have the ride over those guys? ISUCK@MX wrote: Anything's possible, but it seems like by the time these kids get to their 2nd or 3rd year pro, you have a pretty good idea of their future, whether it's injuries, attitude or behavior. Chronic injury is the saddest, 'cause the other two are entirely within their control. Quote Last Post Only ISUCK@MX wrote: Anything's possible, but it seems like by the time these kids get to their 2nd or 3rd year pro, you have a pretty good idea of their future, whether it's injuries, attitude or behavior. Chronic injury is the saddest, 'cause the other two are entirely within their control. Quote Last Post Only Anything's possible, but it seems like by the time these kids get to their 2nd or 3rd year pro, you have a pretty good idea of their future, whether it's injuries, attitude or behavior. Chronic injury is the saddest, 'cause the other two are entirely within their control.
swizcore Posts: 1670 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: Fenton, MI	11/4/2009 2:33 PM swizcore wrote: My biggest dispute with the MXA opinion is that just because Hill had a 6 figure contract he should at least "act" like a responsible adult. How exactly is he supposed to act like one when he isn't one? Sociopath's "act" like normal people, I'd rather see a person be real and progress naturally than a temporary period pretending to be something they're not resulting in the inevitable breakdown. A lucrative contract doesnt equate to life experience and a nobility which suddenly changes your decision making abilities. Oh and he was hanging out with JLaw before his SX win so that point is moot. swizcore wrote: My biggest dispute with the MXA opinion is that just because Hill had a 6 figure contract he should at least "act" like a responsible adult. How exactly is he supposed to act like one when he isn't one? Sociopath's "act" like normal people, I'd rather see a person be real and progress naturally than a temporary period pretending to be something they're not resulting in the inevitable breakdown. A lucrative contract doesnt equate to life experience and a nobility which suddenly changes your decision making abilities. Oh and he was hanging out with JLaw before his SX win so that point is moot. Quote Last Post Only My biggest dispute with the MXA opinion is that just because Hill had a 6 figure contract he should at least "act" like a responsible adult. How exactly is he supposed to act like one when he isn't one? Sociopath's "act" like normal people, I'd rather see a person be real and progress naturally than a temporary period pretending to be something they're not resulting in the inevitable breakdown. A lucrative contract doesnt equate to life experience and a nobility which suddenly changes your decision making abilities. Oh and he was hanging out with JLaw before his SX win so that point is moot. You can call me Kevin.
yosmithy Posts: 123 Joined: 10/29/2006 Location: ,	11/4/2009 2:39 PM Edited Date/Time: 11/4/2009 2:46 PM yosmithy wrote: I agree with most of MXA'a points, but didn't really get why they felt the need to slap nerd around while trying to make their points. Nerdy, did you peepee in their Wheaties lately? yosmithy wrote: I agree with most of MXA'a points, but didn't really get why they felt the need to slap nerd around while trying to make their points. Nerdy, did you peepee in their Wheaties lately? Quote Last Post Only I agree with most of MXA'a points, but didn't really get why they felt the need to slap nerd around while trying to make their points. Nerdy, did you peepee in their Wheaties lately? Nice! I made someones signature....my life is complete.- Matthes
Motodrew295 Posts: 350 Joined: 5/02/2008 Location: KENNEWICK, WA	11/4/2009 2:44 PM zookrider62! wrote: because he hasnt completed a season in years (has he ever completed a season?) and he wants big money. They should have talked badly about him. shaner708 wrote: 2nd to Stewart in both series his rookie year, won about 3-6 races the next couple. I dont think he meant it like, "If it's not getting me rich I'm gonna take my ball and go home" I think it was meant to say "It's not worth risking the rest of my life unless the money is too much to turn down." That was my take on it zookrider62! wrote: because he hasnt completed a season in years (has he ever completed a season?) and he wants big money. They should have talked badly about him. shaner708 wrote: 2nd to Stewart in both series his rookie year, won about 3-6 races the next couple. I dont think he meant it like, "If it's not getting me rich I'm gonna take my ball and go home" I think it was meant to say "It's not worth risking the rest of my life unless the money is too much to turn down." That was my take on it Motodrew295 wrote: Perfectly said. I dont think its an issue of greed, rather he basically posed a hypothetical about a large chunk being thrown down he would go for it, otherwise it's not worth the risk since his career is at a fragile stage right now. Quote Last Post Only Motodrew295 wrote: Perfectly said. I dont think its an issue of greed, rather he basically posed a hypothetical about a large chunk being thrown down he would go for it, otherwise it's not worth the risk since his career is at a fragile stage right now. Quote Last Post Only Perfectly said. I dont think its an issue of greed, rather he basically posed a hypothetical about a large chunk being thrown down he would go for it, otherwise it's not worth the risk since his career is at a fragile stage right now. He’s a definite groomed-from-birth moto-monkey that maybe doesn’t have the social skills that you or I may have but that’s the case for a lot of these Loretta’s kids. -Matthes
googs the 2nd Posts: 57 Joined: 11/01/2009 Location: Kumchukka, ATF	11/4/2009 4:23 PM zookrider62! wrote: because he hasnt completed a season in years (has he ever completed a season?) and he wants big money. They should have talked badly about him. shaner708 wrote: 2nd to Stewart in both series his rookie year, won about 3-6 races the next couple. I dont think he meant it like, "If it's not getting me rich I'm gonna take my ball and go home" I think it was meant to say "It's not worth risking the rest of my life unless the money is too much to turn down." That was my take on it Motodrew295 wrote: Perfectly said. I dont think its an issue of greed, rather he basically posed a hypothetical about a large chunk being thrown down he would go for it, otherwise it's not worth the risk since his career is at a fragile stage right now. shaner708 wrote: 2nd to Stewart in both series his rookie year, won about 3-6 races the next couple. I dont think he meant it like, "If it's not getting me rich I'm gonna take my ball and go home" I think it was meant to say "It's not worth risking the rest of my life unless the money is too much to turn down." That was my take on it Motodrew295 wrote: Perfectly said. I dont think its an issue of greed, rather he basically posed a hypothetical about a large chunk being thrown down he would go for it, otherwise it's not worth the risk since his career is at a fragile stage right now. googs the 2nd wrote: so its a context thing again!... makes sense, he seems like too nice a guy to talk smack........ Quote Last Post Only googs the 2nd wrote: so its a context thing again!... makes sense, he seems like too nice a guy to talk smack........ Quote Last Post Only so its a context thing again!... makes sense, he seems like too nice a guy to talk smack........
Matthes Posts: 194 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: ,	11/4/2009 4:43 PM Motodrew295 wrote: Perfectly said. I dont think its an issue of greed, rather he basically posed a hypothetical about a large chunk being thrown down he would go for it, otherwise it's not worth the risk since his career is at a fragile stage right now. Motodrew295 wrote: Perfectly said. I dont think its an issue of greed, rather he basically posed a hypothetical about a large chunk being thrown down he would go for it, otherwise it's not worth the risk since his career is at a fragile stage right now. Matthes wrote: Nice! I made someones signature....my life is complete. Quote Last Post Only Matthes wrote: Nice! I made someones signature....my life is complete. Quote Last Post Only Nice! I made someones signature....my life is complete. "Matthes......funny like 4 seasons ago and now irrelevant in the pits. No one under 30 with a National point is willing to talk to him these days. The observations became opinions and now he's fucked in the paddock."

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Post a Reply to: "Steve [cox] is wrong on a few counts"