Supercross good for the sport?

kx1984
Posts
240
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
San Jose, CA US
4/17/2010 10:08pm Edited Date/Time 1/25/2012 10:16am
Just have to wonder. I guess you would have to define the sport. Is it Motocross supported by Supercross ? I think that is what the core fans would like to believe it is.

Is it now Supercross supported by a Motocross series? At this point I have to believe that Supercross is just shorting the core fans out of a great outdoor series where you can count on all the fastest guys lining up.

Maybe it's been figured out and the outdoors just are'nt as important as I would like to believe. Did everyone get hurt in the Supercross season and then not ride the outdoors back in say 1986? I first became annoyed with Supercross about 3 years ago when I went to the SF round and noticed super short lap times. Like 50 sec. lap times. You look at the stadium floor and there seems to be plenty of space for a longer track. More recently , it seems like over and over again these guys are getting hurt and not finishing the series (and how good is a series if no one can finish it) and effecting the outdoor series. Now guys don't even want to ride the outdoor series. Rich teams buy the best riders and don't even compete in the outdoor series. How did we get here?

I love that I get to see dirt bikes race on TV way more often that in the past. Maybe that is Supercrosses biggest contribution to "The Sport". On the flip side , if Supercrosses biggest contribution is that my aunt might know the name of a rider ,or there are Fox stores in the malls or a bunch of people that don't ride have Motocross shirts on or stickers on thier trucks then WTF? 20'000 people at a National is good enough. We don't need EVERYONE to care about Motocross.
|
BobbyM
Posts
21449
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
AZ US
4/17/2010 10:09pm
fucking track building designing mofos...not the sport.
mxrider225
Posts
3518
Joined
4/12/2010
Location
FL US
Fantasy
2855th
4/17/2010 10:11pm Edited Date/Time 4/17/2010 10:12pm
They should space out the sports more. Like MX is 12 rounds, sx is 17. 52 weeks in the year. thats 29 weeks of racing 13 of not. so we should have about 6 weeks between series so everyone can recoupe their injuries.
Crush
Posts
20957
Joined
4/26/2009
Location
Sydney AU
4/17/2010 10:13pm
BobbyM wrote:
fucking track building designing mofos...not the sport.
BS, the tracks were way more tech in the 90s and early 2000s...

450s are too much indoors...

Why didn't they race 500s indoors?!?!
BobbyM
Posts
21449
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
AZ US
4/17/2010 10:16pm
BobbyM wrote:
fucking track building designing mofos...not the sport.
Crush wrote:
BS, the tracks were way more tech in the 90s and early 2000s...

450s are too much indoors...

Why didn't they race 500s indoors?!?!
that too

The Shop

kx1984
Posts
240
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
San Jose, CA US
4/17/2010 10:17pm
BobbyM wrote:
fucking track building designing mofos...not the sport.
Crush wrote:
BS, the tracks were way more tech in the 90s and early 2000s...

450s are too much indoors...

Why didn't they race 500s indoors?!?!
I don't know man. That step on to step off onto a step on to step off to a step on a couple a races ago was pretty knarly.
supr_fly_tnt
Posts
374
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Brent World, VT US
4/17/2010 10:18pm
SX is fine for the sport. the 450 is not.

b
kx1984
Posts
240
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
San Jose, CA US
4/17/2010 10:26pm
SX is fine for the sport. the 450 is not.

b
I have not spent enough time on a 250f but I rode a CR500 for 2 seasons way back when. The 450's don't feel anywhere near as sketchy as the old 2 stroke 500's felt. Way more control with the new 4 strokes. When I hop on a 2 stroke 250, it still fells faster that the 450 to me. I think the 450's just get way better traction. I think the 450's are way closer to 250 2 strokes than they are to 500cc 2 strokes.
4/17/2010 10:28pm
Crush wrote:
BS, the tracks were way more tech in the 90s and early 2000s...

450s are too much indoors...

Why didn't they race 500s indoors?!?!
Open class bikes were part of the SX series in '74 - '75.
motowhore
Posts
189
Joined
3/6/2010
Location
Beverly Hills, CA US
4/17/2010 10:40pm
SUPERCROSS good for the sport???

How stupid!
SX is the sport! It makes all the money, it keeps MX alive. Let's be honest here.
RV was pushing way hard for the championship because RD was leading him. RV always rides on the edge, and it bit him. Period.


Pdub
Posts
1478
Joined
8/2/2006
Location
Wheaton, MD US
4/17/2010 10:44pm
What BobbyM said ('bout track design)... supercross IS the sport, just different tracks and formats than outdoor. Um, and different "owners"... now there's something for you to question...

But kx1984, to say "We don't need EVERYONE to care about motocross" is a little selfish, don't you think?
kx1984
Posts
240
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
San Jose, CA US
4/17/2010 10:45pm
motowhore wrote:
SUPERCROSS good for the sport??? How stupid! SX is the sport! It makes all the money, it keeps MX alive. Let's be honest here. RV was...
SUPERCROSS good for the sport???

How stupid!
SX is the sport! It makes all the money, it keeps MX alive. Let's be honest here.
RV was pushing way hard for the championship because RD was leading him. RV always rides on the edge, and it bit him. Period.


Does it keep the sport alive? I still like to believe that I would still be racing weather Supercross ever came along or not. I mean , when you love Motocross you love Motocross.

If Supercroos never caught on , would there be no Motocross? Thats what I think you just said.
kx1984
Posts
240
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
San Jose, CA US
4/17/2010 10:51pm Edited Date/Time 4/17/2010 10:54pm
Pdub wrote:
What BobbyM said ('bout track design)... supercross IS the sport, just different tracks and formats than outdoor. Um, and different "owners"... now there's something for you...
What BobbyM said ('bout track design)... supercross IS the sport, just different tracks and formats than outdoor. Um, and different "owners"... now there's something for you to question...

But kx1984, to say "We don't need EVERYONE to care about motocross" is a little selfish, don't you think?
Completely selfish. OTHG? See you at the Sierra National?
CamP
Posts
6828
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Colleyville, TX US
4/17/2010 10:59pm
I think Supercross may ultimately hurt overall ridership by the general public. I have to think that most parents take their kids to the SX and say that it's a cool event to see but no way in hell they would let their kid race. The more extreme any sport gets, the less people that will be doing it.
motowhore
Posts
189
Joined
3/6/2010
Location
Beverly Hills, CA US
4/17/2010 11:02pm
motowhore wrote:
SUPERCROSS good for the sport??? How stupid! SX is the sport! It makes all the money, it keeps MX alive. Let's be honest here. RV was...
SUPERCROSS good for the sport???

How stupid!
SX is the sport! It makes all the money, it keeps MX alive. Let's be honest here.
RV was pushing way hard for the championship because RD was leading him. RV always rides on the edge, and it bit him. Period.


kx1984 wrote:
Does it keep the sport alive? I still like to believe that I would still be racing weather Supercross ever came along or not. I mean...
Does it keep the sport alive? I still like to believe that I would still be racing weather Supercross ever came along or not. I mean , when you love Motocross you love Motocross.

If Supercroos never caught on , would there be no Motocross? Thats what I think you just said.
SX and MX are a business. It has nothing to do with what we like better.

I love them both equally, but the sponsors love SX. That puts millions of dollars in the stars pockets, and keeps SX on TV every week. That money allows the teams to race the nationals.

Theres a reason JS makes 10 mil a year and only rides SX.

So to ask if SX is good for the sport just seemed really stupid to me.

SX is the sport. MX, WORCS, GNCC, SCORE, Flattrack,Freestyle, and all the others added together do not make the money SX does.
That is just a fact.
Pdub
Posts
1478
Joined
8/2/2006
Location
Wheaton, MD US
4/17/2010 11:04pm
When you love bikes, you love bikes. Don't matter where you ride them. Most of us don't have the skills and/or 'nads to race professional supercross, but we can ride our own scoots and still have fun.

I'm former OTHG, lol. Sierra National sounds tempting...
kx1984
Posts
240
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
San Jose, CA US
4/17/2010 11:07pm
Pdub wrote:
When you love bikes, you love bikes. Don't matter where you ride them. Most of us don't have the skills and/or 'nads to race professional supercross...
When you love bikes, you love bikes. Don't matter where you ride them. Most of us don't have the skills and/or 'nads to race professional supercross, but we can ride our own scoots and still have fun.

I'm former OTHG, lol. Sierra National sounds tempting...
3 days of Hangtown starts this Friday!
Crush
Posts
20957
Joined
4/26/2009
Location
Sydney AU
4/18/2010 3:34am
Open class bikes were part of the SX series in '74 - '75.
Yeah I know, I actually posted straight away afterwards saying yeah but the tracks were indoor MX then, not SX...

Big difference...
WhKnuckle
Posts
7329
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
4/18/2010 4:10am
Supercross is good for the sport - it draws fans and sponsors that you'd never get outdoors. But it's not good that supercross IS the sport on the pro level; the core of motocross is, and will always be, a participant sport, and riders ride motocross, not supercross. Bust up all the best riders before the outdoors, couple that with a few very elite riders who go SX only, and you ruin the part of the sport that riders really want to see.

The solution is to make supercross and the nationals all one series with one champion. Then you wouldn't have Villopoto thinking he HAS to clear that triple, and he'd know that he has plenty of other chances to win the title, he can back it off a little and live to fight another day.

The only problem with that solution is it presumes that the organizing arm of the sport has the vision, the power and the will to make it great. Unfortunately, it doesn't have any of those three attributes.
burnside
Posts
4082
Joined
6/17/2009
Location
London US
4/18/2010 4:51am
Does anyone have any actual stats? Would be interesting to see some figures from the last 2/3 decades.
mccread
Posts
5932
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
4/18/2010 4:58am
Supercross is overated the GPs and AMA National are better titles to win for me. They may not have the pure glamour and mainstream fan base, but outdoors is the real deal not supercross. Supercross is is a great show for the winter when they is no outdoors, it is a shame is has taken over.
mccread
Posts
5932
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
4/18/2010 4:59am
WhKnuckle wrote:
Supercross is good for the sport - it draws fans and sponsors that you'd never get outdoors. But it's not good that supercross IS the sport...
Supercross is good for the sport - it draws fans and sponsors that you'd never get outdoors. But it's not good that supercross IS the sport on the pro level; the core of motocross is, and will always be, a participant sport, and riders ride motocross, not supercross. Bust up all the best riders before the outdoors, couple that with a few very elite riders who go SX only, and you ruin the part of the sport that riders really want to see.

The solution is to make supercross and the nationals all one series with one champion. Then you wouldn't have Villopoto thinking he HAS to clear that triple, and he'd know that he has plenty of other chances to win the title, he can back it off a little and live to fight another day.

The only problem with that solution is it presumes that the organizing arm of the sport has the vision, the power and the will to make it great. Unfortunately, it doesn't have any of those three attributes.
Agree Good post.
hairy
Posts
280
Joined
10/6/2009
Location
None Of Your Fucking Business DE
4/18/2010 7:27am
WhKnuckle wrote:
Supercross is good for the sport - it draws fans and sponsors that you'd never get outdoors. But it's not good that supercross IS the sport...
Supercross is good for the sport - it draws fans and sponsors that you'd never get outdoors. But it's not good that supercross IS the sport on the pro level; the core of motocross is, and will always be, a participant sport, and riders ride motocross, not supercross. Bust up all the best riders before the outdoors, couple that with a few very elite riders who go SX only, and you ruin the part of the sport that riders really want to see.

The solution is to make supercross and the nationals all one series with one champion. Then you wouldn't have Villopoto thinking he HAS to clear that triple, and he'd know that he has plenty of other chances to win the title, he can back it off a little and live to fight another day.

The only problem with that solution is it presumes that the organizing arm of the sport has the vision, the power and the will to make it great. Unfortunately, it doesn't have any of those three attributes.
"one series with one champion". Giuseppe would love you, that was the Masters of Motocross 20 years ago !

SX is the reason anyone outside this small little world even knows what motocross is, the only reason. If the sport only raced round fields, Joe in the street would never have heard of Bubba, in fact Big Bubba would probably never have put so much effort into promoting Juniors career. The whole impetus is that he can earn 10 million, or whatever. If the sport only raced round fields, there wouldn't be seven figures in it for the champion. I know it's sad, but the reality is that SX is the only thing which makes our sport remotely mainstream.

And SX without crashes - spectacular crashes - would not stay mainstream very long, because that is the only thing the target audience outside of the hard core want to see. The faster the tracks, the more spectacular the crashes, the more chance of a fracture. For the promoters, riders are expendable. Ten go down, ship another ten in, just like the gladiators and the lions. Remember Rollerball ?

4/18/2010 8:26am
BobbyM wrote:
fucking track building designing mofos...not the sport.
Crush wrote:
BS, the tracks were way more tech in the 90s and early 2000s...

450s are too much indoors...

Why didn't they race 500s indoors?!?!
They did for a short time, and yes they were way too much for indoors.
DirtDgr
Posts
381
Joined
2/15/2009
Location
Lakeport, CA US
4/18/2010 8:48am
What you have to ask yourself is:

Would supercross survive if outdoor motocross at all levels ceased to exist?

Nope.

Would outdoor motocross at all levels survive without supercross?

Hell yes.



I agree with the poster above that supercross is good for the sports elite but can hurt the core when Johnny Wide Open brings mom and dad to a supercross to convince them he needs a shiney new KX80. Not sure they would agree after that.

sharkey
Posts
2446
Joined
7/28/2008
Location
Marysville, WA US
4/18/2010 8:50am
mccread wrote:
Supercross is overated the GPs and AMA National are better titles to win for me. They may not have the pure glamour and mainstream fan base...
Supercross is overated the GPs and AMA National are better titles to win for me. They may not have the pure glamour and mainstream fan base, but outdoors is the real deal not supercross. Supercross is is a great show for the winter when they is no outdoors, it is a shame is has taken over.
im with you on this one
kx1984
Posts
240
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
San Jose, CA US
4/18/2010 8:50am Edited Date/Time 4/17/2016 10:13pm
BobbyM wrote:
fucking track building designing mofos...not the sport.
Crush wrote:
BS, the tracks were way more tech in the 90s and early 2000s...

450s are too much indoors...

Why didn't they race 500s indoors?!?!
They did for a short time, and yes they were way too much for indoors.
Again , a 450 4 stroke is Wayyy easier to ride than a 500cc 2 stroke. to this day , if you step off of a 450 and on to a 250 2 stroke and go through the gears , the 250 feels way quicker. I don't think 450's are to much But, the tracks are to small.

I still think there is way to much room left over on the stadium floors to be considring changing engine sizes. Thes track could/can be much wider and much longer.
kx1984
Posts
240
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
San Jose, CA US
4/18/2010 8:54am
mccread wrote:
Supercross is overated the GPs and AMA National are better titles to win for me. They may not have the pure glamour and mainstream fan base...
Supercross is overated the GPs and AMA National are better titles to win for me. They may not have the pure glamour and mainstream fan base, but outdoors is the real deal not supercross. Supercross is is a great show for the winter when they is no outdoors, it is a shame is has taken over.
sharkey wrote:
im with you on this one
The GP's are really picking up steam for me. I watch those races on the internet and the tracks look killer. the more I see it, the more I like how the GP's come across. At this point I think it would be cool to have 3 GP's in the States.
CamP
Posts
6828
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Colleyville, TX US
4/18/2010 9:39am
WhKnuckle wrote:
Supercross is good for the sport - it draws fans and sponsors that you'd never get outdoors. But it's not good that supercross IS the sport...
Supercross is good for the sport - it draws fans and sponsors that you'd never get outdoors. But it's not good that supercross IS the sport on the pro level; the core of motocross is, and will always be, a participant sport, and riders ride motocross, not supercross. Bust up all the best riders before the outdoors, couple that with a few very elite riders who go SX only, and you ruin the part of the sport that riders really want to see.

The solution is to make supercross and the nationals all one series with one champion. Then you wouldn't have Villopoto thinking he HAS to clear that triple, and he'd know that he has plenty of other chances to win the title, he can back it off a little and live to fight another day.

The only problem with that solution is it presumes that the organizing arm of the sport has the vision, the power and the will to make it great. Unfortunately, it doesn't have any of those three attributes.
Spot on. One combined series would probably make the riders think more and ride more conservatively.
WhKnuckle
Posts
7329
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
4/18/2010 9:56am Edited Date/Time 4/18/2010 9:59am
Oh, one other idea - 30 lap main events. Riders today are so well-trained that they can absolutely WFO for 20 laps, so make them ride so they have to conserve some energy. It's like local races, the motos are so short that everyone just banzais everything, knowing that if they lose one position they'll have a hard time getting it back and they can't count on anyone getting tired. No wonder we get so many local riders smashed up all the time. Make endurance a bigger part of the sport, and riders will ride a little smoother and won't be quite as willing to take the one, big risk.

Oh, on bikes - someone mentioned that they used to ride 500s indoors; I'm not good on technical tracks anyway, but when I ride my 500 on a night track, it's very difficult. Every time you dial it up you feel like you're going off the track. I've ridden a few 450s and I don't think they were as bad, but they're still a lot of bike on a tight track. 400s would be better, but don't hold your breath waiting on that.
kx1984
Posts
240
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
San Jose, CA US
4/18/2010 10:03am
Here is good racing without the do or die factor. 70,000 were there and no one was missing thesuper technical death trap that Supercross has become. If you were at this race , do you think you would miss the triple ,step on to step off to triple config. of the current tracks? Thse fans were not missing anything. Just sayin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3O4_se6_T4

Post a reply to: Supercross good for the sport?

The Latest