Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
I think for many of us Stewart fans, it's not simply about statistics! Most of us have never claimed he was "The Best Ever" statistically. But imho he is the most exciting rider to ever swing a leg over a bike. And he has done more for our sport than most ever have. If you can't accept that then fine, just move on. Why start a bullshit thread to try to prove a point that you're right and everyone else is wrong?
ESPN still decided he was the greatest athlete of all time.
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Free shipping: VITALMX
The AMA points have nothing to do with overalls. Overalls have zero to do with championships in MX. Each moto stands on it's own and is basically like having two main events. So he should get credit for 144 wins in MX.
I went over the points scenario in another thread several months back and showed how a guy with 1 overall win can beat a guy in the championship who won 11 overalls. Because all that matters is each moto.
The AMA does not give a shit about overalls. They care about individual moto wins.
So that's why you should score these stats differently when looking at MX stats.
Kiedrowski is one of those guys who is hard to rate also. He's got a decent number of titles, but he doesn't get a lot of credit for them.
Aplman...sorry for calling you spread sheet dumb last night. Actually think it's pretty cool to be honest.
I agree with what you say about Kiedrowski...he's certainly overlooked when it comes to past champions whove won multiple titles.
He is one the guys who faced the tail end of Hondas dominance in regards to Supercross in the premier class.
I think that's why maybe...no SX championships.
He did get 2 outdoors in the 250 class 93/94 and 1 500 title in 92 and 2 125 titles outdoors in 91/89 if I'm not mistaken.
Okay, I THINK this is the correct 'stats'. I just used the individual races listed on the Vault to get the totals, sorted by wins. I am going to do it with podiums later, just saved each riders data on a separate page. I like numbers, but I fully realize that they don't always tell the entire story. They are a good starting point, though.
Stewart's realistic and almost inevitable reign in the sport was undone by the things he didn't do.
-look both ways before crossing the track
-say no to cross-jumping in traffic
-say no thank ya to the backward Yamaha for 2010
-give Aldon Baker a million dollars to just go back to where he came from
-keep his finger on the clutch
You could also say he should've...
-gone only fast enough to win
-learned to settle for a podium
-played nice with Chad Reed (so he would play nice in return)
...but that's the stuff we actually like about James Stewart.
1. If a rider won a MX overall I just assumed they went 1-1 in their motos.
2. If they won an MX overal then they had two career starts.
Let me know what you think. I know this is not 100% accurate, but paints anothewr picture as well.
Pit Row
Do you kinda see where I was trying to go though?
2 wins would be the maximum motos you could win each race, but you can win a National without winning a single moto. A more accurate weighting would probably be around 1.25 win, with 2 starts.
The biggest thing that comes to mind is when RV and Townley would trade moto wins. I think they did look at the overall as the goal, even if rationally each moto earns the same points. I can't imagine that win bonuses don't creep into a rider's thoughts at times and when they think that they have the overall, they change strategy just a bit.
It also doesn't give any win credit for a guy who may win a moto, then have a mechanical, be taken out, etc.
Is having an undefeated season in SX where you raced only 16 times equal to a perfect MX season where you won 24/24 motos? I don't think so. But the SX rider would get credit for 16 wins and MX rider only gets credit for 12. That doesn't make sense.
For simplicity sake I see why you are only counting overalls. But that only helps the SX specialists and discounts the MX specialists too much.
I think you have to go by overall because the racing strategy can realistically be affected by it,even without a point bonus for it. It's always seemed like racers have made comments about not going crazy in a second moto because they were thinking of the overall, or talking about holding in second in a first moto because if they won the second moto they would have the overall.
Either way it's going to be subjective how any of us decide to interpret the data.
I had a good write-up on a scenario with the MX points system where a guy who won 1 overall beats the guy who won 11 overalls. It seems strange how the AMA Pro Racing gives two craps about overalls, when everyone (riders, teams, sponsors, fans, etc) care about it a great deal.
It's a pretty good read.
Would be curious to hear you opinion on it. It's actually a pretty compelling read overall with some good replies.
http://www.vitalmx.com/forums/Moto-Related,20/Do-you-like-the-pro-motocross-points-scoring-system,1307675
I'm certainly not against giving the overall winner an extra point, or something along those lines. But usually I don't think it's a big issue. Again, going back to the 2007 season with Villopoto and Townley is a good example. Townley actually won more overalls than Villopoto, 6 to 5, but lost the title by 19 points. Unless an overall win bonus was 19+ points, the outcome would have been effectively the same.
I'm good with the system now also. I think that in the end it adds a little bit of strategy to the title chase. But I remember the days when GP guys would go to tracks that weren't their specialty and just try to garner some points and not get hurt, too. That was more of a chess game, and it wasn't any less interesting than things are today.
I do think though a 6 vs 5 overall differential is a lot different then 1 vs 11. In my scenario not many folks would agree that the guy who only won a single overall beats the guy with 11 overall wins. And keep in mind the guy with 11 overall wins only had a single worst moto finish of 3rd! So he had 11 overall wins and one second overall. But the other guy who wins the championship had 1 overall win and 11 second overalls. On its face, that make no sense he is the champion if you give so much weight to overall wins in MX.
I think if you valued moto wins more, which the current points system does, you will see different lifetime results. May not change life rankings, but you would see guys like RC have an even more dominant position.
Good stats and information overall from everyone. Definitely a compelling thread and data from folks.
Excluding any data and just going by the eye test I like this order.
RC
RV
JS
MC
Dungey
RJ
I'm not including older folks like Bailey, Hannah, etc. when you get too strung out you will need old and modern era lists.
Each of those would alter my list.
I think the takeaway is that if someone calls a rider the best ever and you don't agree with them, it's not the end of the world and you can still discuss it like adults.
Thanks for not making me cry!
Very cool to see the data you guys ran-
Post a reply to: James Stewart vs everyone else. Just the facts man.