Triple or quad??

MPJC wrote:

It is a category mistake - the mistake of ascribing the wrong kind of property to a thing - to assign a numerical value to a...

It is a category mistake - the mistake of ascribing the wrong kind of property to a thing - to assign a numerical value to a tabletop in the same way that you assign a numerical value to a single or set of singles. So it is neither since it is a thing unlike either. I thought I had already solved this in a previous thread. 

 

enketchum wrote:

If the table is first and it's as long as a normal double, then it's a quad.  If the table is last, then it's not a...

If the table is first and it's as long as a normal double, then it's a quad. 

If the table is last, then it's not a quad

Yz450fkid wrote:

What's this? 1 mound of dirt? 2 peaks? Table? Double? Something else?

What's this? 1 mound of dirt? 2 peaks?

Table? Double? Something else?

Falcon wrote:

OK, I finally have time to weigh in the way I want to. I'm quite surprised that the poll seems to reflect nearly a 50/50 split...

OK, I finally have time to weigh in the way I want to. I'm quite surprised that the poll seems to reflect nearly a 50/50 split on this topic, because it seems so easy to me. I doubt I'll convince you guys on the other side, but at least know I respect your opinions, most of which are at least grounded in some kind of reasoning. I disagree, but understand. Here goes:

A TABLETOP JUMP AND TWO SINGLES JUMPED AT ONCE IS A TRIPLE JUMP.

Let's start with the definition of a double jump. Two jumps which, at any distance between, are jumped as one. If we fill this in completely with dirt, it is a tabletop jump, not a double. I think we can all agree on that so far.
If I can clear the two jumps in 2nd gear, it's a double. If I pin it in 3rd and land 25 feet past it, I overjumped the double. If Magoo comes back to life and hits it on a CR500, pinned in 4th and lands 60 feet past it, he overjumped the double. The obstacle does not become a triple, nor a quad simply because someone landed farther away. 
Now on to a standard triple jump: Three individual jumps which, at any distance between, are jumped all at once. These three individual obstacles are a triple, no matter how far a rider jumps over it. All the same measurements apply. It does not become a quad or q quintuple because someone jumps past it.

Here come the variations, though. What if one jump is larger than the others? Still a triple. What if one is slightly farther away? Still a triple. What if you can land on top of one of the jumps, though? Here's where semantics come into play. I believe this is what is confusing the issue. 
When I was learning to ride/race, the idea of a supercross triple was just coming into play. There were often times obstacles like today wherein the final jump was a tabletop. Nobody ever called that a quad, whether they jumped the whole thing or not; it was simply a triple (as it is today, too). To describe the action a rider completes depending on where he lands is easy: he "tripled" onto the last jump, or he "tripled over" it. Three mounds of dirt = a triple jump, whether they are 78 feet apart or three braking bumps. The act of jumping over three bumps is called "tripling." Tri = three.

A quad would require the addition of a fourth, separate and individual mound of dirt to the equation. Four jumps = quad. Note that this is an elegant way to describe the obstacle: mathematically perfect, and non-reliant on opinion or measurement of distance. (We don't have to say "this one's a quad because you can land on top, but that one isn't because it is 9 inches shorter and James Stewart can land on it but Malcolm Stewart cannot," etc. It's not subjective.)

Here are the only things that could count as exceptions, although they still confirm to all the definitions above:
-A "swayback" tabletop could be called a double (and, by extension, a triple or quad if included with other jump(s).) This is like a double but the terrain in the middle doesn't drop as far down as "ground level." That's OK with me to call a double.
-A triple, consisting of two jumps with a tabletop after it, can be called a quad if and only if there is a significant, separate jump built somewhere on top of the tabletop. Note that there are still four jump faces involved.
-A massive tabletop-shaped thing with multiple steps. Each jump face counts toward the characterization of the jump. A big tabletop with a peak in the middle can be called a double, for instance. 

To summarize, three jumps is a triple. A quad requires four jumps, regardless of any landing options. 

Falcon wrote:

OK, I finally have time to weigh in the way I want to. I'm quite surprised that the poll seems to reflect nearly a 50/50 split...

OK, I finally have time to weigh in the way I want to. I'm quite surprised that the poll seems to reflect nearly a 50/50 split on this topic, because it seems so easy to me. I doubt I'll convince you guys on the other side, but at least know I respect your opinions, most of which are at least grounded in some kind of reasoning. I disagree, but understand. Here goes:

A TABLETOP JUMP AND TWO SINGLES JUMPED AT ONCE IS A TRIPLE JUMP.

Let's start with the definition of a double jump. Two jumps which, at any distance between, are jumped as one. If we fill this in completely with dirt, it is a tabletop jump, not a double. I think we can all agree on that so far.
If I can clear the two jumps in 2nd gear, it's a double. If I pin it in 3rd and land 25 feet past it, I overjumped the double. If Magoo comes back to life and hits it on a CR500, pinned in 4th and lands 60 feet past it, he overjumped the double. The obstacle does not become a triple, nor a quad simply because someone landed farther away. 
Now on to a standard triple jump: Three individual jumps which, at any distance between, are jumped all at once. These three individual obstacles are a triple, no matter how far a rider jumps over it. All the same measurements apply. It does not become a quad or q quintuple because someone jumps past it.

Here come the variations, though. What if one jump is larger than the others? Still a triple. What if one is slightly farther away? Still a triple. What if you can land on top of one of the jumps, though? Here's where semantics come into play. I believe this is what is confusing the issue. 
When I was learning to ride/race, the idea of a supercross triple was just coming into play. There were often times obstacles like today wherein the final jump was a tabletop. Nobody ever called that a quad, whether they jumped the whole thing or not; it was simply a triple (as it is today, too). To describe the action a rider completes depending on where he lands is easy: he "tripled" onto the last jump, or he "tripled over" it. Three mounds of dirt = a triple jump, whether they are 78 feet apart or three braking bumps. The act of jumping over three bumps is called "tripling." Tri = three.

A quad would require the addition of a fourth, separate and individual mound of dirt to the equation. Four jumps = quad. Note that this is an elegant way to describe the obstacle: mathematically perfect, and non-reliant on opinion or measurement of distance. (We don't have to say "this one's a quad because you can land on top, but that one isn't because it is 9 inches shorter and James Stewart can land on it but Malcolm Stewart cannot," etc. It's not subjective.)

Here are the only things that could count as exceptions, although they still confirm to all the definitions above:
-A "swayback" tabletop could be called a double (and, by extension, a triple or quad if included with other jump(s).) This is like a double but the terrain in the middle doesn't drop as far down as "ground level." That's OK with me to call a double.
-A triple, consisting of two jumps with a tabletop after it, can be called a quad if and only if there is a significant, separate jump built somewhere on top of the tabletop. Note that there are still four jump faces involved.
-A massive tabletop-shaped thing with multiple steps. Each jump face counts toward the characterization of the jump. A big tabletop with a peak in the middle can be called a double, for instance. 

To summarize, three jumps is a triple. A quad requires four jumps, regardless of any landing options. 

Falcon wrote:

OK, I finally have time to weigh in the way I want to. I'm quite surprised that the poll seems to reflect nearly a 50/50 split...

OK, I finally have time to weigh in the way I want to. I'm quite surprised that the poll seems to reflect nearly a 50/50 split on this topic, because it seems so easy to me. I doubt I'll convince you guys on the other side, but at least know I respect your opinions, most of which are at least grounded in some kind of reasoning. I disagree, but understand. Here goes:

A TABLETOP JUMP AND TWO SINGLES JUMPED AT ONCE IS A TRIPLE JUMP.

Let's start with the definition of a double jump. Two jumps which, at any distance between, are jumped as one. If we fill this in completely with dirt, it is a tabletop jump, not a double. I think we can all agree on that so far.
If I can clear the two jumps in 2nd gear, it's a double. If I pin it in 3rd and land 25 feet past it, I overjumped the double. If Magoo comes back to life and hits it on a CR500, pinned in 4th and lands 60 feet past it, he overjumped the double. The obstacle does not become a triple, nor a quad simply because someone landed farther away. 
Now on to a standard triple jump: Three individual jumps which, at any distance between, are jumped all at once. These three individual obstacles are a triple, no matter how far a rider jumps over it. All the same measurements apply. It does not become a quad or q quintuple because someone jumps past it.

Here come the variations, though. What if one jump is larger than the others? Still a triple. What if one is slightly farther away? Still a triple. What if you can land on top of one of the jumps, though? Here's where semantics come into play. I believe this is what is confusing the issue. 
When I was learning to ride/race, the idea of a supercross triple was just coming into play. There were often times obstacles like today wherein the final jump was a tabletop. Nobody ever called that a quad, whether they jumped the whole thing or not; it was simply a triple (as it is today, too). To describe the action a rider completes depending on where he lands is easy: he "tripled" onto the last jump, or he "tripled over" it. Three mounds of dirt = a triple jump, whether they are 78 feet apart or three braking bumps. The act of jumping over three bumps is called "tripling." Tri = three.

A quad would require the addition of a fourth, separate and individual mound of dirt to the equation. Four jumps = quad. Note that this is an elegant way to describe the obstacle: mathematically perfect, and non-reliant on opinion or measurement of distance. (We don't have to say "this one's a quad because you can land on top, but that one isn't because it is 9 inches shorter and James Stewart can land on it but Malcolm Stewart cannot," etc. It's not subjective.)

Here are the only things that could count as exceptions, although they still confirm to all the definitions above:
-A "swayback" tabletop could be called a double (and, by extension, a triple or quad if included with other jump(s).) This is like a double but the terrain in the middle doesn't drop as far down as "ground level." That's OK with me to call a double.
-A triple, consisting of two jumps with a tabletop after it, can be called a quad if and only if there is a significant, separate jump built somewhere on top of the tabletop. Note that there are still four jump faces involved.
-A massive tabletop-shaped thing with multiple steps. Each jump face counts toward the characterization of the jump. A big tabletop with a peak in the middle can be called a double, for instance. 

To summarize, three jumps is a triple. A quad requires four jumps, regardless of any landing options. 

NotCore wrote:

Maybe if you can't explain it simply...its a quad.  ; )

zookrider62! wrote:

for all of the "you count the possible landing spots" nerds You would be considering a camel hump a quad, and a step up (with table)...

for all of the "you count the possible landing spots" nerds

You would be considering a camel hump a quad, and a step up (with table) a triple, that just doesnt sit right

and AP was the only person I saw hit this "triple" in the race by landing on the downside (not shown in this photo)

creature654 wrote:

It’s a quad, poll proves it, all you triple folk can admit you were wrong now!

felpro wrote:

Landing on the third down-ramp is a triple. Landing on the forth is a quad. When there's a tabletop, things are different and need a different...

Landing on the third down-ramp is a triple. Landing on the forth is a quad.

When there's a tabletop, things are different and need a different name.

If there's a tabletop involved, It's a "Long triple" or a "Tabletop triple".  

 

viking174 wrote:

Two single and a table make  a quad or triple?

viking174 wrote:

Two single and a table make  a quad or triple?

Radical wrote:

It's closer to a quad than a triple, but it's really a double + a table. It's more than a triple because it's more difficult and...

It's closer to a quad than a triple, but it's really a double + a table.

It's more than a triple because it's more difficult and farther, but it's not a full quad because coming up short isn't as risky as 4 singles.

Might as well call it a 3 1/2, or a Tree Fiddy.

If it was a table, then 2 singles, I'd consider it the same as a quad, since the risk is the same as 4 singles.

Mr. Ted wrote:

Have we addressed whether 2 tabletops make a quad? If not, then a double plus a tabletop cannot make a quad...

HonDawg17 wrote:

Whereas I call it a quad...don't forget that sometimes there's 2 definitions for the same thing. I would also accept "triple-over" if its single-single-table and they...

Whereas I call it a quad...don't forget that sometimes there's 2 definitions for the same thing. I would also accept "triple-over" if its single-single-table and they land on the backside of the table.

jasonv43 wrote:

Falcon wrote:

Careful there. We don't want to wade into the "is it a quint?" discussion. 

Careful there. We don't want to wade into the "is it a quint?" discussion. 

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

A lot of you are fixated on landing spots. I’ve always felt like it went by potential spots to take off from. Triple jump I can...

A lot of you are fixated on landing spots. I’ve always felt like it went by potential spots to take off from.

Triple jump I can roll then double. Or double then roll. Or jump them all. 3 takeoff locations.

Tabletop, I could roll onto it and roll down the backside. Or I could jump the whole thing. That’s not two jumps because I don’t have a second location to take off from.

Two jumps and a tabletop is a triple. 3 locations to take off and jump from.

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

A lot of you are fixated on landing spots. I’ve always felt like it went by potential spots to take off from. Triple jump I can...

A lot of you are fixated on landing spots. I’ve always felt like it went by potential spots to take off from.

Triple jump I can roll then double. Or double then roll. Or jump them all. 3 takeoff locations.

Tabletop, I could roll onto it and roll down the backside. Or I could jump the whole thing. That’s not two jumps because I don’t have a second location to take off from.

Two jumps and a tabletop is a triple. 3 locations to take off and jump from.

The real Sasquatch wrote:

Well You can technically take off from the top of the tabletop too.  Landing onto the flat.  Or even clearing a small gap and landing on...

Well You can technically take off from the top of the tabletop too.  Landing onto the flat.  Or even clearing a small gap and landing on the downside of a single after it.  So an on off tabletop is really just an elevated small double?  Or is it still a tabletop with a dip in the middle. And how deep will said dip need to get before it becomes a double?  Can it start out as a triple and than as bikes land on top of the table and create the uneven top that is in effect a double than turn it into a quad later on in a race?  Or do jumps have to be born a quad ? 

It clearly doesn't fit into one or the other . Like a dragons back is not a jump with whoops on it. The jump itself is a triple , but jumping it is quading it.  If landing on the top is tripling how is clearing it to the downside not something else? 

HonDawg17 wrote:

Whereas I call it a quad...don't forget that sometimes there's 2 definitions for the same thing. I would also accept "triple-over" if its single-single-table and they...

Whereas I call it a quad...don't forget that sometimes there's 2 definitions for the same thing. I would also accept "triple-over" if its single-single-table and they land on the backside of the table.

Falcon wrote:

You would accept it, because that's the correct definition. You can triple onto the [b]3rd[/b] jump or triple over the [b]3rd[/b] jump, but you can never...

You would accept it, because that's the correct definition. You can triple onto the 3rd jump or triple over the 3rd jump, but you can never quad (quad=4,) onto, over, or near a 3rd jump.