Mad as hell (LL Class structure)

lumpy790 wrote:

until 45 & 50+ riders get off the couch and the numbers increase at the area qualifiers nation wide........ they dont have a chance.

Rupert X wrote:

I would say that there are 2-3 times more 45 and 50+ class racers than women racers, yet they have three (3) classes at Loretta's. Explain...

I would say that there are 2-3 times more 45 and 50+ class racers than women racers, yet they have three (3) classes

at Loretta's. Explain that, Sir Lumpy ?.

There are plenty, PLENTY of 45+ and 50+ racers. REAL racers. Not slow dudes like me, eating my Geritol while

trying to be BIG MAN ON CAMPUS.

knowitalloveragainnovice wrote:

7 year olds race against 4 year olds at that event......and the sick thing about it is that they have 3 ...yes 3 classes the 7...

7 year olds race against 4 year olds at that event......and the sick thing about it is that they have 3 ...yes 3 classes the 7 year olds can race 4 year olds in.

Pw 50 class make it 5 and under

multi speed- do away with it

Stock just let 6 year olds have at it

As much as i think it's bullshit that there is a c class......i don.t beleive 9 year olds shold run with 7 year olds.

Get rid of skill classifications ......age class racin is how it should be.....the fastest 15 year old, fastest 14 year olds

6 7 8 9 10 all the way to 18.....25000 try to qualify.....it.s bullshit 12 year olds have to race 14 year olds.

JustMX wrote:

This crap again? Do you not understand that the only way that a 9 year old is able to race in the 7-8 class is because...

This crap again?

Do you not understand that the only way that a 9 year old is able to race in the 7-8 class is because they turn 9 after January 1?

I guess you don't understand that the reason it is done that way is so a kid doesn't have to move up an age class half way through a district or other series.

What is your solution to a kid being able to do that?

Geez, come up with something real besides your kids birthday or STFU

Mspicer wrote:

When they turn a certain age that exceeds the class limit, then they should move up. There is no reason that a 9 year-old should still...

When they turn a certain age that exceeds the class limit, then they should move up. There is no reason that a 9 year-old should still be riding a 50!. Parents think that they have to win their local points paying championship in order to feel like they are progressing. And at the national level, you have these kids that are too big for the bikes and they win the championship in that class. You have 7 year-olds winning in the 4-6 class, 9 year-olds winning the 7-8 class, and 10 year-olds winning the 7-9 class, and finally, 12! year-olds winning the 10-11 or 7-11 class. Move up! nobody will remember that you won a local championship that was solely determined by how many times you raced that season. And yes, I know that a 5 year-old won this year but consider the competition in the 50's class these days. And finally, allowing the 150R to race in a designated 85 class was a good decision.

JustMX wrote:

This crap again? Do you not understand that the only way that a 9 year old is able to race in the 7-8 class is because...

This crap again?

Do you not understand that the only way that a 9 year old is able to race in the 7-8 class is because they turn 9 after January 1?

I guess you don't understand that the reason it is done that way is so a kid doesn't have to move up an age class half way through a district or other series.

What is your solution to a kid being able to do that?

Geez, come up with something real besides your kids birthday or STFU

Mspicer wrote:

When they turn a certain age that exceeds the class limit, then they should move up. There is no reason that a 9 year-old should still...

When they turn a certain age that exceeds the class limit, then they should move up. There is no reason that a 9 year-old should still be riding a 50!. Parents think that they have to win their local points paying championship in order to feel like they are progressing. And at the national level, you have these kids that are too big for the bikes and they win the championship in that class. You have 7 year-olds winning in the 4-6 class, 9 year-olds winning the 7-8 class, and 10 year-olds winning the 7-9 class, and finally, 12! year-olds winning the 10-11 or 7-11 class. Move up! nobody will remember that you won a local championship that was solely determined by how many times you raced that season. And yes, I know that a 5 year-old won this year but consider the competition in the 50's class these days. And finally, allowing the 150R to race in a designated 85 class was a good decision.

steveada wrote:

You have to have a cutoff somewhere since the whole process of qualifying for LL's is a 6 month process. What do you propose? Say your...

You have to have a cutoff somewhere since the whole process of qualifying for LL's is a 6 month process. What do you propose? Say your kid has a birthday on June 1. Is he going to be forced to jump up to the older class for the qualifiers since he will be a year older by the time LL's comes around? If that was the rule i'll bet you would be bitching because your 6 year old is being forced to ride in the 7-8 y/o class. No matter where you make the cutoff date, some kids will be either older than the class they are riding in, or forced to ride in an older class. It is not a 1 day event that it would be possible to say the age you are on the day of the race is the class you ride in and have everyone in every qualifier riding their exact age appropriate class.

Mspicer wrote:

When they turn a certain age that exceeds the class limit, then they should move up. There is no reason that a 9 year-old should still...

When they turn a certain age that exceeds the class limit, then they should move up. There is no reason that a 9 year-old should still be riding a 50!. Parents think that they have to win their local points paying championship in order to feel like they are progressing. And at the national level, you have these kids that are too big for the bikes and they win the championship in that class. You have 7 year-olds winning in the 4-6 class, 9 year-olds winning the 7-8 class, and 10 year-olds winning the 7-9 class, and finally, 12! year-olds winning the 10-11 or 7-11 class. Move up! nobody will remember that you won a local championship that was solely determined by how many times you raced that season. And yes, I know that a 5 year-old won this year but consider the competition in the 50's class these days. And finally, allowing the 150R to race in a designated 85 class was a good decision.

steveada wrote:

You have to have a cutoff somewhere since the whole process of qualifying for LL's is a 6 month process. What do you propose? Say your...

You have to have a cutoff somewhere since the whole process of qualifying for LL's is a 6 month process. What do you propose? Say your kid has a birthday on June 1. Is he going to be forced to jump up to the older class for the qualifiers since he will be a year older by the time LL's comes around? If that was the rule i'll bet you would be bitching because your 6 year old is being forced to ride in the 7-8 y/o class. No matter where you make the cutoff date, some kids will be either older than the class they are riding in, or forced to ride in an older class. It is not a 1 day event that it would be possible to say the age you are on the day of the race is the class you ride in and have everyone in every qualifier riding their exact age appropriate class.

Mspicer wrote:

To be honest, I am not pro Lorrettas at that age anyway. Mitch Payton stated this year that parents should keep their kids home and race...

To be honest, I am not pro Lorrettas at that age anyway. Mitch Payton stated this year that parents should keep their kids home and race locally until they start racing big bikes. There is not a fix that will even the playing field between the 50's-85's. Moving the cutoff date doesn't work so ultimately the parents have to decide whether to hang on to the dream of winning championships in certain classes, or move up to tackle bigger challenges. I am not against kids racing in their age group so long as they are that age. If you are 12 and still trying to win a championship on a 65, then I take issue. You had your time to win and if it didn't happen before you turned 12, then accept it and move on. Don't get me wrong, I understand the significance of the "Dream," but in the grand scheme of things, the teams are not looking at 50 riders, they are looking at Pro A and B riders. Yes you can argue the AC's of the world and etc.., are the rule, but not in today's motocross environment.

NeWskoolmxer wrote:

Yeah fuck the future of our sport. And I guarantee you could not beat last years winner of said " Fucking C class".

GIwasB4 wrote:

That because he (or she, it's possible), has been bucking the points advancement system so they don't ride in the "B" or "A" class that they...

That because he (or she, it's possible), has been bucking the points advancement system so they don't ride in the "B" or "A" class that they should be in, doing so that they do not miss out on all that respective sponsor swag and parent entitlements.
That said, your right, I could not beat a C class winner, they're likely a cherry picking A or B rider.

flarider wrote:

It seems as if this fight comes up at least once or twice a year, and what almost always strikes me as odd is that those...

It seems as if this fight comes up at least once or twice a year, and what almost always strikes me as odd is that those bitching the most are people who do not or never have gone to LL's.

As for the age issue, that has been addressed in this thread correctly. If you change the age cut off to anything other than Jan 1st, you're going to be advancing kids up in age all year long. What if Lil Johnny has a birthday after one of the qualifiers? He's now not qualified for the next age level because he raced the appropriate age division at the last qualifier. No matter what, one way or another, you're going to wind up with a rider older or younger than the division they are racing in. You have to have all age advancements on Jan 1. My birthday is the week after LL's, how would that work? It's fine the way it is.

As for C class, the C class is typically the largest division of riders at any race track and is the future of the sport. These are the kids who typically go on and keep racing into the future, why are we trying to discourage riders? MXSports and the AMA has done a good job of policing the C class and it is no where near as bad as it was. If Jimmy Twotits has been racing C class for three years, he is not eligible for C class at LL's anyway, because they have in the supplemental rules a time rule, something like if you've been racing for a year and a half, you're no longer C class eligible. This gets rid of the C class lifers. Plus, once they go to LL's, they're in the system and can never race C class again...one bite at the apple. As for the argument that C class is as fast as B, you really have no idea how bullshit that argument is. Do you realize that only ONE RIDER has ever won C class and gone on to win a 2nd title at LL's....One Rider....do you know who it is? No, not McGrath. Jeremy raced LL's once, in C, won it and did not race LL's again. But only one rider has won C and come back to win a 2nd title.

Novice class or C class riders are the bread and butter of this sport, they're the future. To ignore the incoming class participants is pure silliness. You get the riders into the system in C, they get a taste of what LL's is like, and are prepared for when they return in B or another division. If you eliminated C, that would just open the door for even worse sandbagging in B, because B class has no limitations on time or advancement requirements. Hell, because of the rules, you can't even force a rider out of B to A until 16 yrs old, because A is a "pro" division. You can't force a rider under 16 to race pro. AC92 is a B rider....think about that. Gonna make little Jimmy who's only been racing 6 months race AC92 in B class if he wants to race LL's? This makes sense to you? How?

When demand exceeds availability, they'll expand the older age divisions, but when area and regionals have only a handful of riders trying to qualify, you can't expect top tier full class availability. They weren't filling the gates, that's why they got cut back.

Lastly, no matter what, MX Sports will never make everyone happy, someone will always bitch, someone will always be pissed, someone will always feel slighted...but MX Sports does try to be fair, they do try, and that is all you can ask for, to at least try to be fair.

seth505 wrote:

Does anyone who has only raced for 6 months go and compete at LL, for real?

flarider wrote:

Yes, I meet a couple of them every year.

motosickness wrote:

The sad fact is that the C class and in particular LL'S and the C class is ruining amatuer MX in this country. There is no...

The sad fact is that the C class and in particular LL'S and the C class is ruining amatuer MX in this country. There is no National governing body keeping track of points and C sandbaggers who hold back for years to go to LL's in the C class.

Example, little Johnny kicks ass all year in C he is ready for B but wants to go to LL's and compete in the C class. Little Johnny gets hurt at the Area or Regional and can't go so he holds back the whole next year to go again in C class. This happens time and time again. Then there is the very talented kid who really should have never even been in C except for maybe his first race, who also dominates all year or multiple years to go to LL's for C glory.

The powers that be that should be responsible for keeping track of points and finishes of riders don't do it. It has become a joke! Good luck running a local series, totaly takes the wind out of the sails of the real C riders and makes the sport look like a joke! Some Districts do a good job of keeping track of points and advancement but it is not even close to a fair playing field state to state...

Thats why there shouldn't be a C class at LL's. There will still be the same amount of riders there, they will just be in the right classes and have a reason to advance instead of hold back!!!

lumpy790 wrote:

MX Sports has been regulating the C & B participants points for a few years now........the guys racing in C now are legit C riders.

seth505 wrote:

Does anyone who has only raced for 6 months go and compete at LL, for real?

flarider wrote:

Yes, I meet a couple of them every year.

mark_swart wrote:

LL is all about developing riders for the next level. I would argue that those of us in the +30 and up classes are about as...

LL is all about developing riders for the next level. I would argue that those of us in the +30 and up classes are about as developed as we will get. If you want to prove your worth as a vet, go to the Vet world championships.
Let's stick to our role as a support class for the ones who are on the way up.
C class has to stay. Women absolutely have to stay, as they are our one potential growth segment.
If anything I wonder more about the benefits of having stock versus modified classes.

flarider wrote:

It seems as if this fight comes up at least once or twice a year, and what almost always strikes me as odd is that those...

It seems as if this fight comes up at least once or twice a year, and what almost always strikes me as odd is that those bitching the most are people who do not or never have gone to LL's.

As for the age issue, that has been addressed in this thread correctly. If you change the age cut off to anything other than Jan 1st, you're going to be advancing kids up in age all year long. What if Lil Johnny has a birthday after one of the qualifiers? He's now not qualified for the next age level because he raced the appropriate age division at the last qualifier. No matter what, one way or another, you're going to wind up with a rider older or younger than the division they are racing in. You have to have all age advancements on Jan 1. My birthday is the week after LL's, how would that work? It's fine the way it is.

As for C class, the C class is typically the largest division of riders at any race track and is the future of the sport. These are the kids who typically go on and keep racing into the future, why are we trying to discourage riders? MXSports and the AMA has done a good job of policing the C class and it is no where near as bad as it was. If Jimmy Twotits has been racing C class for three years, he is not eligible for C class at LL's anyway, because they have in the supplemental rules a time rule, something like if you've been racing for a year and a half, you're no longer C class eligible. This gets rid of the C class lifers. Plus, once they go to LL's, they're in the system and can never race C class again...one bite at the apple. As for the argument that C class is as fast as B, you really have no idea how bullshit that argument is. Do you realize that only ONE RIDER has ever won C class and gone on to win a 2nd title at LL's....One Rider....do you know who it is? No, not McGrath. Jeremy raced LL's once, in C, won it and did not race LL's again. But only one rider has won C and come back to win a 2nd title.

Novice class or C class riders are the bread and butter of this sport, they're the future. To ignore the incoming class participants is pure silliness. You get the riders into the system in C, they get a taste of what LL's is like, and are prepared for when they return in B or another division. If you eliminated C, that would just open the door for even worse sandbagging in B, because B class has no limitations on time or advancement requirements. Hell, because of the rules, you can't even force a rider out of B to A until 16 yrs old, because A is a "pro" division. You can't force a rider under 16 to race pro. AC92 is a B rider....think about that. Gonna make little Jimmy who's only been racing 6 months race AC92 in B class if he wants to race LL's? This makes sense to you? How?

When demand exceeds availability, they'll expand the older age divisions, but when area and regionals have only a handful of riders trying to qualify, you can't expect top tier full class availability. They weren't filling the gates, that's why they got cut back.

Lastly, no matter what, MX Sports will never make everyone happy, someone will always bitch, someone will always be pissed, someone will always feel slighted...but MX Sports does try to be fair, they do try, and that is all you can ask for, to at least try to be fair.

flarider wrote:

It seems as if this fight comes up at least once or twice a year, and what almost always strikes me as odd is that those...

It seems as if this fight comes up at least once or twice a year, and what almost always strikes me as odd is that those bitching the most are people who do not or never have gone to LL's.

As for the age issue, that has been addressed in this thread correctly. If you change the age cut off to anything other than Jan 1st, you're going to be advancing kids up in age all year long. What if Lil Johnny has a birthday after one of the qualifiers? He's now not qualified for the next age level because he raced the appropriate age division at the last qualifier. No matter what, one way or another, you're going to wind up with a rider older or younger than the division they are racing in. You have to have all age advancements on Jan 1. My birthday is the week after LL's, how would that work? It's fine the way it is.

As for C class, the C class is typically the largest division of riders at any race track and is the future of the sport. These are the kids who typically go on and keep racing into the future, why are we trying to discourage riders? MXSports and the AMA has done a good job of policing the C class and it is no where near as bad as it was. If Jimmy Twotits has been racing C class for three years, he is not eligible for C class at LL's anyway, because they have in the supplemental rules a time rule, something like if you've been racing for a year and a half, you're no longer C class eligible. This gets rid of the C class lifers. Plus, once they go to LL's, they're in the system and can never race C class again...one bite at the apple. As for the argument that C class is as fast as B, you really have no idea how bullshit that argument is. Do you realize that only ONE RIDER has ever won C class and gone on to win a 2nd title at LL's....One Rider....do you know who it is? No, not McGrath. Jeremy raced LL's once, in C, won it and did not race LL's again. But only one rider has won C and come back to win a 2nd title.

Novice class or C class riders are the bread and butter of this sport, they're the future. To ignore the incoming class participants is pure silliness. You get the riders into the system in C, they get a taste of what LL's is like, and are prepared for when they return in B or another division. If you eliminated C, that would just open the door for even worse sandbagging in B, because B class has no limitations on time or advancement requirements. Hell, because of the rules, you can't even force a rider out of B to A until 16 yrs old, because A is a "pro" division. You can't force a rider under 16 to race pro. AC92 is a B rider....think about that. Gonna make little Jimmy who's only been racing 6 months race AC92 in B class if he wants to race LL's? This makes sense to you? How?

When demand exceeds availability, they'll expand the older age divisions, but when area and regionals have only a handful of riders trying to qualify, you can't expect top tier full class availability. They weren't filling the gates, that's why they got cut back.

Lastly, no matter what, MX Sports will never make everyone happy, someone will always bitch, someone will always be pissed, someone will always feel slighted...but MX Sports does try to be fair, they do try, and that is all you can ask for, to at least try to be fair.

Denny979 wrote:

There should be a seperate week at LL's for us old fart's. With a really big beer tent.

CamP wrote:

Like I said before, for every C class rider that races LL's, there's 100 more local C racers that never even attempt to go to LL's...

Like I said before, for every C class rider that races LL's, there's 100 more local C racers that never even attempt to go to LL's. If your goal is to increase entries at the National, then the C class makes sense. If your goal is to increase ridership at the other 500 tracks racing that weekend in August, the C class at LL's in counter-productive.

Denny979 wrote:

There should be a seperate week at LL's for us old fart's. With a really big beer tent.

GrapeApe wrote:

This idea has potential.

knowitalloveragainnovice wrote:

7 year olds race against 4 year olds at that event......and the sick thing about it is that they have 3 ...yes 3 classes the 7...

7 year olds race against 4 year olds at that event......and the sick thing about it is that they have 3 ...yes 3 classes the 7 year olds can race 4 year olds in.

Pw 50 class make it 5 and under

multi speed- do away with it

Stock just let 6 year olds have at it

As much as i think it's bullshit that there is a c class......i don.t beleive 9 year olds shold run with 7 year olds.

Get rid of skill classifications ......age class racin is how it should be.....the fastest 15 year old, fastest 14 year olds

6 7 8 9 10 all the way to 18.....25000 try to qualify.....it.s bullshit 12 year olds have to race 14 year olds.

JustMX wrote:

This crap again? Do you not understand that the only way that a 9 year old is able to race in the 7-8 class is because...

This crap again?

Do you not understand that the only way that a 9 year old is able to race in the 7-8 class is because they turn 9 after January 1?

I guess you don't understand that the reason it is done that way is so a kid doesn't have to move up an age class half way through a district or other series.

What is your solution to a kid being able to do that?

Geez, come up with something real besides your kids birthday or STFU

Denny979 wrote:

There should be a seperate week at LL's for us old fart's. With a really big beer tent.

GrapeApe wrote:

This idea has potential.

mark_swart wrote:

Two days of racing, two days of drinking beer and bench racing? Sold! Why isn't there an east coast or centrally accessible vet championship though? That...

Two days of racing, two days of drinking beer and bench racing? Sold!

Why isn't there an east coast or centrally accessible vet championship though? That would be cool.

flarider wrote:

Many go to LL's not expecting to win a championship, but because it's a week long motocross heaven vacation, with a swimming creek, racing all day...

Many go to LL's not expecting to win a championship, but because it's a week long motocross heaven vacation, with a swimming creek, racing all day every day, a pool, BBQ's, evening entertainment, see new bikes, see new products....