How many fans thought Anderson won?

Nah, we don't need an Asterisk. Just never do a stupid triple crown race again and we're good.

Guilty.

And no, I dont care if a guy wins the overall w/o winning a moto. I like the format.

More races that matter. Less that don’t.

Johnny Depp wrote:

Not us motohead guys in the know. It is an age old problem with Olympic scoring for an "Overall".
And he did pass Tomac and disappear in Moto 3.

And what happens when someone wins the Overall without winning a single Moto?

Do we need to always have an asterisk that says who won, and who was really the fastest?

I think -- whether you mean to or not -- that you're arguing the "one final winner-take-all race" mentality, which is never what motocross has been about. Dorna tried that for a while when they owned the commercial rights to FIM motocross, and it was a mistake.

Asterisk? Indicating what? And you can win a season series without winning a single race, so why would you need to win a race for an overall?

That said, I don't think the commentators paid enough attention to the overall standings for the night, and, as we've discussed on another thread, I don't think championship points should be awarded based on the overall, because there may be no incentive to gain positions in Race 3.

Johnny Depp wrote:

Not us motohead guys in the know. It is an age old problem with Olympic scoring for an "Overall".
And he did pass Tomac and disappear in Moto 3.

And what happens when someone wins the Overall without winning a single Moto?

Do we need to always have an asterisk that says who won, and who was really the fastest?

Stop with the asterisk bullshit. ET fans sounded stupid last year. Lets not start up again.

The winner is the one with the most points. That is how it works for outdoors MX, the triple crown SX, and the season championship. Often the fastest has the most points, but not always.

The "fastest" guy does NOT equal the racing even winner. There is more to racing it than that.
If you want to award "fastest" guy then just do time trials in the AM, kill the night race, and we can all get to bed early.

With this 3 race format & ET knowing he would win overall with a 2nd place finish he didn't even try to race with JA ,

mac3-d wrote:

With this 3 race format & ET knowing he would win overall with a 2nd place finish he didn't even try to race with JA ,

That's right, and that's what's wrong with awarding points for the overall.

Johnny Depp wrote:

Not us motohead guys in the know. It is an age old problem with Olympic scoring for an "Overall".
And he did pass Tomac and disappear in Moto 3.

And what happens when someone wins the Overall without winning a single Moto?

Do we need to always have an asterisk that says who won, and who was really the fastest?

Brownstone322 wrote:

I think -- whether you mean to or not -- that you're arguing the "one final winner-take-all race" mentality, which is never what motocross has been about. Dorna tried that for a while when they owned the commercial rights to FIM motocross, and it was a mistake.

Asterisk? Indicating what? And you can win a season series without winning a single race, so why would you need to win a race for an overall?

That said, I don't think the commentators paid enough attention to the overall standings for the night, and, as we've discussed on another thread, I don't think championship points should be awarded based on the overall, because there may be no incentive to gain positions in Race 3.

I'm just pointing out that while there is champagne still spraying from the "big success" that the triple crown format brought 1 race, there are other solutions.

Supercross was never supposed to be the same as Motocross, at it's origin it was to bring a better mousetrap to the masses.

I think they need to play musical chairs. Maybe drop the highest 5 in points each moto to put some urgency and consequence into it. Less lappers in the final one to affect the outcome.

you casual channel flipper isnt going to know or care who won , allthough that must be who the promoters ae going for to gain veiwers, what they are missing is that this is a niche sport and hardcore fans watch it , and we try to introduce others to watch, and we explain how it works saturday night i didnt even ty to explain to my buddy whos only watched a few rounds last season, i told him fuk this race we will watch another normal one and youll understand, i aint wacthing no more tripple crowns and i could give a shit who wins

I'll keep watching because I love the sport. However, I don't buy into the logic that we need to change anything about the regulations in order to attract more viewers or increase excitement.

Want more viewership? Advertise better. To this day, I've never seen nor heard anything about Supercross in any mainstream channel except for the 10 days leading up to a local event.

9.........9 people thought Anderson won.

Falcon wrote:

Nah, we don't need an Asterisk. Just never do a stupid triple crown race again and we're good.

Aaaand BOOM goes the dynamite...

Just stop it, Johnny, once and for all.

I honestly think the whole points system with supercross is shit. i cant understand how some one can win so many racers and not come out on top.
its stupid to think you can go a whole year and not win 1 race and still win a title..

theirs no will to win any more from riders.. when you look back to the 2000''s every one wanted to win every race, every weekend.. i understand its a long season and all about the end result.. but we don't see the fire from riders each week or rivalry's any more..

and yes.. i understand its riding smart and thats just how it is. but needs to be a bigger reward for 1st place.