Herlings 24-0

Robgvx wrote:

Would be interesting to know how his lap times compared with the regulars.

Notice Joel Smets at the end, telling him to use his head...?

Dan-The-Man wrote:

I think you have forgot the point that was being argued. Which is, because US riders spend more time testing and racing SX they aren't as...

I think you have forgot the point that was being argued. Which is, because US riders spend more time testing and racing SX they aren't as fast outdoors. You basically just proved that point by saying MXGP riders would adapt to SX given the time. I have no doubt they have the skill level to compete in SX. However, if they rode MXGP all year they will be slower in SX because of less time on that type of track. Do you think US riders wouldn't gain more speed by spending all year on outdoor tracks? Surely you are not that naive.

Brownstone322, maybe read the whole thread to understand the context before replying?

RichardLoots wrote:

makes a lot of sense doesnt it ;) but wasnt there a time when it was seen as an advantage for the US riders racing SX...

makes a lot of sense doesnt it but wasnt there a time when it was seen as an advantage for the US riders racing SX (if i remember correctly and was the word over here in europe )and so became better racers or it was just because that generation was freaky awesome good .. ?? talking aroung 80 s here

jnickell wrote:

Yes, there was a time when it was seen as an advantage to race Supercross. The reasons were that Supercross required a bit more precision and...

Yes, there was a time when it was seen as an advantage to race Supercross. The reasons were that Supercross required a bit more precision and aggression as well as some specific techniques. Now that SX has been around for 40 years, these special techniques have propagated to the entire earth which has leveled the playing field. To me, the only advantage that racing SX gives a rider is that it forces them to be precise. But that only matters when actually racing supercross. That precision doesn't help much when blasting down a sandy whooped out straight in Belgium. All the special techniques that made the 80's and 90's racers harder to beat are now known and practiced by all countries. The disadvantage that SX creates is that there is a lot less practice on things like the sandy whooped out straight I mentioned above. Don't forget the ruts that only get half the year's attention.

My point is that the SX series has become a hindrance to the US riders prowess on a motocross track and the things that made it advantageous in the 80's no longer exist.

Dan-The-Man wrote:

I think you have forgot the point that was being argued. Which is, because US riders spend more time testing and racing SX they aren't as...

I think you have forgot the point that was being argued. Which is, because US riders spend more time testing and racing SX they aren't as fast outdoors. You basically just proved that point by saying MXGP riders would adapt to SX given the time. I have no doubt they have the skill level to compete in SX. However, if they rode MXGP all year they will be slower in SX because of less time on that type of track. Do you think US riders wouldn't gain more speed by spending all year on outdoor tracks? Surely you are not that naive.

Brownstone322, maybe read the whole thread to understand the context before replying?

RichardLoots wrote:

makes a lot of sense doesnt it ;) but wasnt there a time when it was seen as an advantage for the US riders racing SX...

makes a lot of sense doesnt it but wasnt there a time when it was seen as an advantage for the US riders racing SX (if i remember correctly and was the word over here in europe )and so became better racers or it was just because that generation was freaky awesome good .. ?? talking aroung 80 s here

jnickell wrote:

Yes, there was a time when it was seen as an advantage to race Supercross. The reasons were that Supercross required a bit more precision and...

Yes, there was a time when it was seen as an advantage to race Supercross. The reasons were that Supercross required a bit more precision and aggression as well as some specific techniques. Now that SX has been around for 40 years, these special techniques have propagated to the entire earth which has leveled the playing field. To me, the only advantage that racing SX gives a rider is that it forces them to be precise. But that only matters when actually racing supercross. That precision doesn't help much when blasting down a sandy whooped out straight in Belgium. All the special techniques that made the 80's and 90's racers harder to beat are now known and practiced by all countries. The disadvantage that SX creates is that there is a lot less practice on things like the sandy whooped out straight I mentioned above. Don't forget the ruts that only get half the year's attention.

My point is that the SX series has become a hindrance to the US riders prowess on a motocross track and the things that made it advantageous in the 80's no longer exist.

cali11 wrote:

No Herlings would not go 24-0, that will never happen again. End of story.