THIS MAY HAVE BEEN COVERED ALREADY BUT...

You want someone to punch James Stewart in the face???
He designed it, if you are talking Atlanta.

Stewart said afterwards that wasn't the track he designed.

Personally, I thought it was one of the better tracks of the year so far. Ruts, lack of rythm, no "cookie-cutter" bullshit we see every week.

It had personality. 2 thumbs-up!

[quote="ddog558":2em6vs4s]Personally, I thought it was one of the better tracks of the year so far. Ruts, lack of rythm, no "cookie-cutter" bullshit we see every week.

It had personality. 2 thumbs-up![/quote:2em6vs4s]

I'll agree with that...

[quote="PD441":1xt5qleg]Stewart said afterwards that wasn't the track he designed.[/quote:1xt5qleg]

He sat there and talked about it with Braun on the mic, and said how he designed this and that. They spent a good deal of time talking about the gnarly triple and the finish line double with no run at it.
There must be some type of alternate reality I keep reading about how Stewart didn't design the track, RC set fastest time waving to the crowd, and there was some conspiracy to let Millsaps win. I'll call it "Internet Bizarro World." " title="Laughing">

[quote="ddog558":30k3am4z]Personally, I thought it was one of the better tracks of the year so far. Ruts, lack of rythm, no "cookie-cutter" bullshit we see every week.

It had personality. 2 thumbs-up![/quote:30k3am4z].

X1 plus different people won.

The only thing Stewart said that I heard was that he didn't put the "walls" in his design; they were added after he was done with it. I believe this is borne out by the 3D track map on RacerXIll, which has no walls.

I think they have to stick by certain rules when they design the track such as 2 timing section, 2 triples, a whoop section and of course finish line so there's not much give to fully design it the way you want.

[quote="mxjef":13jbl2op][quote="ddog558":13jbl2op]Personally, I thought it was one of the better tracks of the year so far. Ruts, lack of rythm, no "cookie-cutter" bullshit we see every week.

It had personality. 2 thumbs-up![/quote:13jbl2op]

I'll agree with that...[/quote:13jbl2op]

I liked it, that's why DM did so well, it wasn't a sissy track.

Relax, guys. Less than two weeks and it'll be Daytona. Almost MX!

[quote="Breck":4l5vb1xq]THAT WAS THE LAMEST STUPIDEST WORST TRACK I'VE EVER SEEN WHO EVER DESIGNED THAT NEEDS A PUNCH IN THE FACE.[/quote:4l5vb1xq]
O.K. now tell us how you really feel.

[quote="mxjef":l4agelz5][quote="ddog558":l4agelz5]Personally, I thought it was one of the better tracks of the year so far. Ruts, lack of rythm, no "cookie-cutter" bullshit we see every week.

It had personality. 2 thumbs-up![/quote:l4agelz5]

I'll agree with that...[/quote:l4agelz5]

Me too. Biggest thing I liked about it was, Chad Reed didn't like it. Plus, someone new won.

I didn't like it either...I thought those "walls" were EXTRA gay!

"Motocross" is supposed to be about dealing with the obstacles that are in front of you. I totally like the tracks that make the riders work to go fast instead of just "flowing". That's all about NASCAR and this is motocross.

Dane

[quote="Breck":15fhm2t5]THAT WAS THE LAMEST STUPIDEST WORST TRACK I'VE EVER SEEN WHO EVER DESIGNED THAT NEEDS A PUNCH IN THE FACE.[/quote:15fhm2t5]
STFU cornboy

[quote="TGTech":chhoekzv]"Motocross" is supposed to be about dealing with the obstacles that are in front of you. I totally like the tracks that make the riders work to go fast instead of just "flowing". That's all about NASCAR and this is motocross.

Dane[/quote:chhoekzv]
bingo. my thoughts exactly.

[quote="TGTech":p9kqtni4]"Motocross" is supposed to be about dealing with the obstacles that are in front of you. I totally like the tracks that make the riders work to go fast instead of just "flowing". That's all about NASCAR and this is motocross.
[/quote:p9kqtni4]
Yes, but this is SX, not motocross
I got a DVD set on the history of supercorss, and the original ones were painful to watch. Nobody could get a rhythm going. Part of it was probably due to the suspensions, but some of it was definitely track design.

[quote="miko":2dv5jeqn][quote="TGTech":2dv5jeqn]"Motocross" is supposed to be about dealing with the obstacles that are in front of you. I totally like the tracks that make the riders work to go fast instead of just "flowing". That's all about NASCAR and this is motocross.
[/quote:2dv5jeqn]
Yes, but this is SX, not motocross
I got a DVD set on the history of supercorss, and the original ones were painful to watch. Nobody could get a rhythm going. Part of it was probably due to the suspensions, but some of it was definitely track design.[/quote:2dv5jeqn]
YOU are what is wrong with the racing today.
YOU think SX is about being an aerial circus and rhythmic synchronized racing.

Please, go away.
This is not the sport for you

[quote="flarider":29br3nfw]YOU are what is wrong with the racing today.[/quote:29br3nfw]

I didn't know I had that much power!
What is wrong with the racing anyway? Now that the 2 mutants are gone it looks pretty entertaining to me.

[quote="miko":1nzn76nx]I didn't know I had that much power! [/quote:1nzn76nx]
Please put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard.

Noobs shouldnt attempt to think & post in the same setting.

Oh, and STFU.

[quote="Moto East Mag":f9qrdtto]
There must be some type of alternate reality I keep reading about how Stewart didn't design the track, RC set fastest time waving to the crowd, and there was some conspiracy to let Millsaps win. I'll call it "Internet Bizarro World." " title="Laughing">[/quote:f9qrdtto]


aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!

I liked it. I especially liked the "walls of death".

[quote="Breck":3hmr3g18]THAT WAS THE LAMEST STUPIDEST WORST TRACK I'VE EVER SEEN WHO EVER DESIGNED THAT NEEDS A PUNCH IN THE FACE.[/quote:3hmr3g18]

Everyone I talked to after the race said it sucked.
It changed it up...looked slower but the racing was closer for once.

Didn't A2 have some similar obstacles anyway? And that was like the greatest SX track ever?

[quote="flarider":adrev12y][quote="miko":adrev12y][quote="TGTech":adrev12y]"Motocross" is supposed to be about dealing with the obstacles that are in front of you. I totally like the tracks that make the riders work to go fast instead of just "flowing". That's all about NASCAR and this is motocross.
[/quote:adrev12y]
Yes, but this is SX, not motocross
I got a DVD set on the history of supercorss, and the original ones were painful to watch. Nobody could get a rhythm going. Part of it was probably due to the suspensions, but some of it was definitely track design.[/quote:adrev12y]
YOU are what is wrong with the racing today.
YOU think SX is about being an aerial circus and rhythmic synchronized racing.

Please, go away.
This is not the sport for you[/quote:adrev12y]

Accurate assessment. Agree totally.

Let's see -

Non traditional track objects -
Better racing all around -
New winner and podium -
More difficult and technical riding prevails -
A few didn't like the changes -

I don't see where the problems come in? Tracks are tougher, racing is better, and it's not 15 laps of the same BS over and over.

I agree this track was not one of my favorites. That being said, had Reed not tried to jump (probally the smallest thing on the track) that obstacle, and thus lawn dart himself to the ground, we wouldnt be talking about how great the new track styles cause parity. Honestly, I think Reed would have checked out and won by 10+ seconds if not for the mistake. Anyone who thinks that jump being somewhat unique caused him to lose needs their head checked!

Did I miss something? That jump did cause him to loose the lead, didn't it?

Giving credit where credit is due, Reed was trying something different and working on getting around the track faster than anyone else. This time it didn't work, but next time it might. He probably would have won the race by a good margin, but he didn't. And through out the night, these more difficult obstacles took there toll on more than just a few riders.

If you watched the retro night video, Bailey and Johnson were jumping things 20 years ago that guys from today may not. That was flat out desire to win at all costs.

[quote="Zero":1qobtem5]I liked it. I especially liked the "walls of death".[/quote:1qobtem5]

Yep, who wulda thunk--a new freaken obstacle in the Freakshow! I luved it!

Next they should bring in the MUD PIT after the Wall of Death!

I agree Scott, that thing DID cause Reed to crash and also look at all the frustrated riders that either crashed or block passed their way onto the ground! It was not a pretty track but it was good for tighter racing and also good to see something a little bit different " title="Smile">