Am I the only one who is confused on how they decided to do the points for this SMX championship?
Shouldn't the rider's championship placement be their "moto scores" for each title? There's more MX races and points available than in SX. AND the points per event are different. In Jett's case, he never even raced 450 SX but is somehow 3rd in points?. Shouldn't his absence from SX account for something? Like 44th place? Not just combined points.
How I thought it made sense was Championship finish for each title was your position in that title. So Sexton got 1st for SX and 4th for MX. So his scores in the championships are 1-4 scores giving him the lead of the SMX title. But Jett didn't even race 450 SX, so he should be credited with dead last (44th) place in the series. He wins the 450MX title for a SMX score of 44-1. So him and Tomac are 10th and 11th place overall.
Here's how I say it makes sense:
I like day drinking
How is sorting them by total combined points more confusing than what you’ve cooked up here?
It's been a long two weeks.....
Because there's more points available in 1 series than the other. Perfect example of the flaw is Jett. He only raced 1 series and is seen as 3rd in points over guys that raced both series? You don't see the massive problem with that? Therefore a guy can just race MX Series to get in the top 5 instead of racing both series. What the hell is the point of having them combined then? Jett didn't even race a whole ass series like the rest of the guys above him on my list. Its about both championship finishes, NOT total points. If both series had equal points there would be no issue. But they aren't remotely close in point totals.
edit: You understand what I'm saying?
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
I don't see the 'massive problem' in that structure, no. I see more of a flaw in giving Jett 44 points for not racing SX and Eli 73 points for not racing MX. My point was if your main concern is that the current combined points structure is confusing, I don't see how your version is less confusing. Simply adding up total points is by far the most simple way to sort the riders at the end of the two series.
I didn't give him 44 points. That's the first non points position in Supercross 44th place. And there's 72 riders who got points in MX so Tomac was top finisher that didn't race outdoors, he gets first non points position, 73. Not racing a series has to count for something is my main point. Otherwise leave it alone.
Contrarians will always find a weird ass little hill to die on. Always.
The amount of points available to each rider is the same and they all have equal opportunity to earn those points. If a rider gets injured and misses the majority of the SX rounds but is able to make up a huge amount of point in MX with good performances, there is nothing wrong with that. The same applies to a rider moving up like Jett.
It is already a level playing field to begin with, weighting the different championships differently (a championship in SX is weighted the same as a championship in MX, regardless of points earned, points available, etc.) is needlessly confusing. The current points system isn't perfect but it's way more intuitive than what you're proposing
Plus, the intent was to get rider to not skip the nationals. A lot more points up for grabs in the nationals, therefore heavily incentivising racing them. Problem solved.
Yes, you’re the only one.
I like the system you came up with. It makes perfect sense and is much better than the current system.
My main point is you have 5 guys who busted their asses and raced BOTH series. Its still 2 separate championships with the SMX as a bonus championship that seemingly means nothing other than payout. Jett on paper, skipped a whole half of the year's series and is still eligible to win the whole thing? That's not right at all. What's the point of SuperMotocross if you don't even need to race the "Super" part of the series? Like I said above, it should be championship finishes as moto scores to determine placement for the points reset. Otherwise you're screwing the guys who raced nearly the whole year; Plessinger, Webb, Sexton, Barcia, Anderson, Cianciarulo.
Never thought i'd say this, but I actually think your system is better. It would also help clear up the issue for 250 supercross where one coast has more races than the other, and it makes the 250 class much more balanced in general. Not really fair to have max SX points at 234 (I might be off on that) and MX max points at 550.
Could get complicated if Rider A wins supercross, Rider B gets second, and then Rider A gets second outdoors and Rider B gets 1st - they tied, who is the winner? Do they both go into SMX with 25 points?
One could argue that Jett did in fact race supercross, limited by a half series and scored 223 sx points. Maybe he should be ranked #1 at 773 points?
Point being, there is always something you could change but that doesn't mean that the current structure doesn't make sense. Ultimately, you only get points for the races you are in, which avoids giving riders points or a standing for something they weren't* in at all.
I like this. Adds incentive to race outdoors. The top dogs that we want to see outdoors, get locked in with one SX win with no other incentive to race outdoors. Although it’s now a combined series, the favorite is still SX, with all SMX incentives favoring supercross.
But they only get locked-in to the LCQ, not the top 20
Pit Row
All 5 of those guys got their asses absolutely HANDED to them in the MX series. That should count for something.
Go figure. YOU, of all people, are completely missing the point.
That's not a valid argument and you know it. Not even the same competitors, race lengths, or bikes. Try again Francis.
Says the guy that wants to randomly give Jett a ranking for a series he wasn't in, "But Jett didn't even race 450 SX, so he should be credited with dead last (44th) place in the series.".
Where is the hate for Justin Cooper racing the 250 SMX even though he pointed out of 250 SX? How do you assign him a place for a series that he isn't even eligible for?
Whatever the change is, you need to use actual data and not random places/points.
Maybe we need an even more confusing formula, like it they have a cat it's 3 points but if they have a dog it's 7 points but each additional cat is only worth 2 points.... shit I should not have drank my lunch
Time for a nap buddy
Spoken like a true keyboard warrior. Not listening to the obvious and easy formula I placed before you. Not counting points. Only counting finish position in each championship as moto scores for the year. Its Supermotocross; Supercross AND Motocross. If you don't race in 1 of the series, you shouldn't be eligible to win the whole thing.
I will admit I didn't read much of what was posted, but why not do it this way:
SX and MX:
1st - 25 pts
2nd -22 pts
3rd - 20 pts
4th - 18 pts
etc.
Sexton would have 43 points (1-4) going into SMX and then score each race with 25, 22, 20, 18, etc. then on the final round maybe double the points per moto.
Yeah they raced both and still couldn’t beat someone who only races one lol
It’s a good way to ensure that the top riders who couldn’t race both series don’t even bother turning up for SMX.
Under your system why would Jet and Tomac even race SMX when they have almost zero chance of winning?
Well that's just how it goes in their cases then. No one has the right to a title shot. You gotta earn it.
Ok. So nearly winning the SX title (before injury) and absolutely dominating MX like few riders in history isn’t earning a shot at the title?
Post a reply to: SMX Points "reset" question