Triple or quad??

It's not doubling either though. Since you are landing on a 3rd mound of dirt.   Would it be  called doubling onto the 3rd bump? 

I don't think either side that has stated reasons for why they call it one or the other is confused. Its just what they call it.  

At a local track in NH there is a tabletop  with a single after it.  Nobody calls it a triple. They call it going Table to bump. 

If everybody agrees that jumping to the downside of a tabletop  when it is the landing, is something more than landing on top of it. Quading gives it a simple single word to describe the act of clearing the double and tabletop in a single jump.  I agree that the jump is a triple. But if describing the act of jumping it all as a single jump in the fewest words possible  quading would be the best way to be clear and let somebody know that they landed on the downside of a tabletop after a double and not make it run on like many of my posts do . 

Since again You would not  double onto the table if it was the 3rd mound. And landing on the top doesn't have the same consequence of landing short on a double or triple.  It is someplace in between. I can get on board with calling the jump a triple. But not the act of jumping it since it leaves too much open to interpretation. I think if somebody said they quaded the double to table . Or downsided the landing of the table jumping from the double , everybody knows what is being said. 

I would say Quading  is the  Y of motocross terms.  It is both a vowel and not a vowel. It can be done with  3 mounds if one is a tabletop, or 4 if all are single.  It is not math, it don't need to make sense as long as people understand it.  Blue is blue, not because of anything other than it has been used to describe the hue of the color.  

^Interesting take. 

I still don't call that action "quading" unless there are four jumps, but I like your explanation. Maybe we should coin a term for what it is to "quad" a triple? Someone mentioned "tree fiddy" earlier. We could call it "tree fiddying" it. 

This thread  ...LOL 

  To ME, it's about how many bad places to land are there, places where you are guaranteed to crash and get hurt, how many actual gaps are there and how many faces are there to smash into ?  Landing on top of a table doesn't count the same as coming up short into an uphill jump face. One is a "Safe" landing, one isn't.  

If you took a standard triple and filled in the second gap and made it a table, it's not a triple any more, it's a double. One bad place to land. A triple has two bad places to land. A lot of you seem hung up on the distance, if you took the same standard triple and took out the middle bump, it's not a triple anymore, it's a double, granted it's a big double, but still a double... It's not about the distance flown as much as how many potential "Uphill" faces are there to come up short into.  A "standard" triple is what something like 65 feet ?  Is a 130' table called a six pack or two triples because of the distance flown ? No. It's a long table. It's about how many potential bad landings are there. 

Double - 1 place you can not land without crashing.

Triple - 2 places you can not land without crashing.

Quad - 3 places you can not land without crashing.   

Confused yet ? 

A tabletop is singular(one, alone, lone, solitary, isolated, by itself). It is one pile of dirt, it can be in no way shape or form identified as anything else. Doubling or tripling has always been the number of singular obstacles you jump over. 2 singles and then a table top has and always will be a triple. There is a difference of whether you triple on or triple over and its explained that easily. But hey, if you quad god guys wanna carry on with small wiener syndrome, go for it. 

The argument isn't really about what it's called... It's really about what is being summed up.  Is it the sum of landing options? Is it the sum of take-off options? Or it's the sum of obstacles being negotiated in one jump.

Yes, I didn't put a question mark on that last one for a reason.

Not confused. You are right. 

I have jumped a 110' double and I have also quintupled five whoops that were about 25 feet in total. Distance isn't the deciding factor. 

^ That's a 3-3-3.  (If you look closely, there's an inside jump that James went around. If you take the outside line in the previous corner, you have one fewer jump in that section.) 

Triple, triple containing two tabletops, triple. 

This track had a proper Quad, 90 feet by memory and also had some pretty big whoops which MC dominated.

I’m gonna say quad on this one 

He just proved you can land on top. This adds a whole other level of complexity to retard vital math.

After watching that I think I understand why we are struggling with this so much. Human language is just not properly equipped to explain what is seen here. 

It’s about size and distance, and really only applicable to SX as far as this debate is concerned. If everyone on the track is taking a long option on a jump of 40-65 feet but one or two guys takes an extra long option of 75+ feet (other than the SX triple), people are going to call it a quad regardless of how many flats or faces fit in between. 

On the inverse, people won’t call a small jump a quad even if it has the right number of face’s between takeoff and landing. Case in point, jumping through long whoops will almost never get called a quad. 
 

Then call it something different.  Quad = 4, distance is irrelevant.  To label 3 obstacles a quad is an admission of a language deficiency.  

Can we just call it a table quad? Or a tapple? Lol

If you build an 85’ triple and jump it a couple of times and then take the second jump out do you still consider it a triple? Or is it now a double?

It's now an 85' double.

So it doesn’t matter how big the gap is, only how many downsides there are correct?

it should be triple, "3 on" or "3 over" to be clear what landing it is.

Partially correct.  Yes, the gap size does not matter. However, when numerical labeling like double, triple, quad verbiage was started decades ago, it was (and still is) about how many obstacles, not landing options per obstacle. It's really simple, count the obstacles a rider jumps in one leap and that's the numerical label it gets.