THAT's a "Quad"

Related:
Create New Tag

3/29/2018 8:29 PM
Edited Date/Time: 3/29/2018 8:32 PM

The video of of Eli crashing last week was shown in Racer X's Sign of the Lap Times article written by Dan Carlson. He stated that Eli cased a "Quad". However, there were only three obstacles. The logic that seems to be used is if there is a table top involved, it's a double. Pretty lame if you ask me. Especially when it's a small table like the one in Eli's situation. If you want to see a real "Quad", watch this video of Stew in 2011. THAT's a "Quad".

I realize some of you are sick of the Quad talk regardless of your opinion. My opinion is that it undermines the entire fabric of MX/SX. Anyone with a brain knows that quad is short for quadruple which is equal to FOUR. I have never ever ever jumped a table and claimed to have jumped a double. How can some of you claim that a single + a table = a triple? Sensationalism, that's how.

|

Before responding to any post, consider these three things...
1. Context!
2. Context!
3. Context!

3/29/2018 8:37 PM
Edited Date/Time: 3/29/2018 8:41 PM

1 takeoff + 3 potential landing zones = 4 (quad)

Potential landing zone #1) On top of the tabletop
Potential landing zone #2) Downside (landing) of the tabletop
Potential landing zone #3) downside (landing) of the single

A tabletop is just a double with the middle filled in. They are physically the same size as doubles and can be converted to a double by just chopping out the center of it.

Yes, i do realize that if you have a monkey brain that all you see is one mound of dirt. But thats like me saying a Ferrari is the same thing as a Kia because they are cars and they have 4 wheels.

If the dirtwurx crew got crazy and just moved the dirt out of the middle of the tabletop, would it then count as a quad? There would still be the same number of takeoffs and potential landing zones

Potential landing zone #1) Downside (landing) of the second single
Potential landing zone #2) Downside (landing) of the third single
Potential landing zone #3) downside (landing) of the fourth single

|

3/29/2018 8:38 PM

Who fucking cares at this point.

“Undermines the entire fabric of MX/SX”? Seriously?

|

3/29/2018 8:46 PM

zehn wrote:

Who fucking cares at this point.

“Undermines the entire fabric of MX/SX”? Seriously?

Yep. Do you want this sport to be in the same classification as WWE? BS = lack of respect. If you truly dig motocross and are a student of the sport, this hype crap probably irritates you. If you're doing it because it's cool, your name might be zehn and you might say you quadded something that only has three obstacles. BTW, if you don't care, stay the crap out of the thread.

|

Before responding to any post, consider these three things...
1. Context!
2. Context!
3. Context!

3/29/2018 8:47 PM

jnickell wrote:

Yep. Do you want this sport to be in the same classification as WWE? BS = lack of respect. If you truly dig motocross and are a student of the sport, this hype crap probably irritates you. If you're doing it because it's cool, your name might be zehn and you might say you quadded something that only has three obstacles. BTW, if you don't care, stay the crap out of the thread.

Is this guy for real?

|

3/29/2018 8:53 PM

I regret making a somewhat-educated response to this clown

|

3/29/2018 8:55 PM

rmoto003 wrote:

1 takeoff + 3 potential landing zones = 4 (quad)

Potential landing zone #1) On top of the tabletop
Potential landing zone #2) Downside (landing) of the tabletop
Potential landing zone #3) downside (landing) of the single

A tabletop is just a double with the middle filled in. They are physically the same size as doubles and can be converted to a double by just chopping out the center of it.

Yes, i do realize that if you have a monkey brain that all you see is one mound of dirt. But thats like me saying a Ferrari is the same thing as a Kia because they are cars and they have 4 wheels.

If the dirtwurx crew got crazy and just moved the dirt out of the middle of the tabletop, would it then count as a quad? There would still be the same number of takeoffs and potential landing zones

Potential landing zone #1) Downside (landing) of the second single
Potential landing zone #2) Downside (landing) of the third single
Potential landing zone #3) downside (landing) of the fourth single

Potential landings don't count. It's potential take offs. If you land on the top of a table, after a single jump, you doubled onto it. If you clear the table after the single, you have doubled. If you don't clear a table, does that mean you doubled?
No, you didn't clear the single obstacle called a TABLE TOP. The landing zones don't matter. A double with the middle filled in is now something that you can come up short on and pay no penalty. Also, do you say you jumped a double if you clear a table top? If so, we may as well not debate. I guarantee you that you might give a 60' table top a go without much worry but if it were truly a double, you'd be WAY more calculated.

|

Before responding to any post, consider these three things...
1. Context!
2. Context!
3. Context!

3/29/2018 9:03 PM

Let the horse die in peace.

|

much ty. How to spot a paid forum poster/artificial forum traffic producer (see list of actions/phrases below):

Copius pattern amounts of phrases like “Anyone have”..., “Anybody know?”.... and their variations.

Thoughts?
Any help is appreciated!
Thanks in advance!





3/29/2018 9:11 PM

kzizok wrote:

Let the horse die in peace.

I figured it might end up like this kzizok. I debated on whether to post it but I figured what the hey. At least it's something to debate considering the video evidence. I stand corrected and sorry for even throwing it out here. Carry on fellas.

|

Before responding to any post, consider these three things...
1. Context!
2. Context!
3. Context!

3/29/2018 9:14 PM

kzizok wrote:

Let the horse die in peace.

jnickell wrote:

I figured it might end up like this kzizok. I debated on whether to post it but I figured what the hey. At least it's something to debate considering the video evidence. I stand corrected and sorry for even throwing it out here. Carry on fellas.

It’s not a debate If you personally attack people who respond and hold a hardline view that can’t change. You’re literally asking people to disagree with you so you can tell them how wrong they are.

|

3/29/2018 9:15 PM

If the landing is on a single and you cleared an entire table top in between, whatever—it’s a quad.

|

3/29/2018 9:20 PM

kzizok wrote:

Let the horse die in peace.

jnickell wrote:

I figured it might end up like this kzizok. I debated on whether to post it but I figured what the hey. At least it's something to debate considering the video evidence. I stand corrected and sorry for even throwing it out here. Carry on fellas.

zehn wrote:

It’s not a debate If you personally attack people who respond and hold a hardline view that can’t change. You’re literally asking people to disagree with you so you can tell them how wrong they are.

I was wrong for throwing darts at you zehn. Sorry. Your response "who fucking cares at this point" struck a cord with me. My thought is that if you don't have anything constructive to say other than simply disagreeing with the existence of the post, why comment? I should have ignored yours for the same reason. You can disagree with the post content but you implied that the post shouldn't exist.

|

Before responding to any post, consider these three things...
1. Context!
2. Context!
3. Context!

3/29/2018 9:36 PM

jnickell wrote:

I was wrong for throwing darts at you zehn. Sorry. Your response "who fucking cares at this point" struck a cord with me. My thought is that if you don't have anything constructive to say other than simply disagreeing with the existence of the post, why comment? I should have ignored yours for the same reason. You can disagree with the post content but you implied that the post shouldn't exist.

I’ve just been involved in far too many of these debates to engage in another one. Nothing against you

|

3/29/2018 9:37 PM
Edited Date/Time: 3/29/2018 9:38 PM

So if the center table top is only 10' long , it's a quad. What if it's an 80' table in the middle with 130' from take off on the first , the the landing on the third obstacle?

I personally think every mound of dirt ( no matter how big or how far spread apart.....it's a single , double , triple or quad.

What if they just took the top 5' off the center mound on a triple on an SX track? Is that now considered a quad as well? No.....it's still a triple.

This new " it's now considered a quad because there is a table in the middle......is utter freakin nonsense.

|

And there goes Jeffro. One of God's own prototypes. A super high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.

Pimpin' Ho's , Rollin' fatty's......drinkin' beers , beers , beers!! ~ Ja

3/29/2018 9:37 PM

zehn wrote:

Who fucking cares at this point.

“Undermines the entire fabric of MX/SX”? Seriously?

I see some singles and a table.

But I also agree with zehn.

|

3/29/2018 9:50 PM

zehn wrote:

Who fucking cares at this point.

“Undermines the entire fabric of MX/SX”? Seriously?

GuyB wrote:

I see some singles and a table.

But I also agree with zehn.

Maybe my fabric statement is a little strong but I still stand by the basic concept of it. BS is BS. There is lots of talk about our sport being taken seriously. Calling some of these obstacles quads reminds me of the foot stomp the WWE guys do as they act like their punching their opponent REALLY hard.

|

Before responding to any post, consider these three things...
1. Context!
2. Context!
3. Context!

3/29/2018 9:52 PM

You know what's fake? WWE.

You know what's not? Supercross.

|

3/29/2018 10:04 PM

I’m gonna place the same answer I use in this never dying stupid argument. I’ve asked a ton of Supercross ravers if they call an obstacle of that nature a quad and they’ve all answered yes. So if the guys that have the balls to do it call it a quad, it’s a quad. Now if some armchair bench racer wants to call it less, bring it up with the guys doing the jump...

|

3/29/2018 10:04 PM

GuyB wrote:

You know what's fake? WWE.

You know what's not? Supercross.

Of course, you are correct. But like my signature says, context, context, context. We're talking about the labeling of a jump combo. In my WWE analogy, the wrestler is truly hitting the opponent, but how hard? Not nearly as hard as he's trying to make you think with the slamming of his foot. The slamming of the foot is equal to the announcers making claims like this. "...and Tomac just jumped the quad!" when he jumped a single over a small table and lands on a single. Was it real? Of course. Was it a quad? No.

|

Before responding to any post, consider these three things...
1. Context!
2. Context!
3. Context!

3/29/2018 10:09 PM

Just a point of clarity. The WWE isn't "fake", it's "fixed". There's a difference. While as stupid as it may be (which I think it is), the people in the WWE are very good athletes for what they are capable of doing. There's still a lot of risk and injury in their industry. And hey, if people pay good money to watch that crap (don't ask me why)...then there must be a market for it. Crazy but it is what it is.

|

3/29/2018 10:12 PM

ML512 wrote:

I’m gonna place the same answer I use in this never dying stupid argument. I’ve asked a ton of Supercross ravers if they call an obstacle of that nature a quad and they’ve all answered yes. So if the guys that have the balls to do it call it a quad, it’s a quad. Now if some armchair bench racer wants to call it less, bring it up with the guys doing the jump...

ML512, I understand your logic but just because they call it quad doesn't make it right. The argument isn't stupid. The fact that a quad somehow has less than 4 obstacles is stupid.

|

Before responding to any post, consider these three things...
1. Context!
2. Context!
3. Context!

3/29/2018 10:16 PM

TbonesPop wrote:

Just a point of clarity. The WWE isn't "fake", it's "fixed". There's a difference. While as stupid as it may be (which I think it is), the people in the WWE are very good athletes for what they are capable of doing. There's still a lot of risk and injury in their industry. And hey, if people pay good money to watch that crap (don't ask me why)...then there must be a market for it. Crazy but it is what it is.

Indeed, those dudes are definitely athletes. And you're right, it isn't fake. However, the punching they assist with the stomping is theatrically exaggerated.

|

Before responding to any post, consider these three things...
1. Context!
2. Context!
3. Context!

3/29/2018 10:33 PM

Although this thread is likely Dumbgeon-bound, I’d like to call everyone’s attention to just how badass that video of Stewart is...

|

3/29/2018 10:38 PM

^
^^
^^^
^^^^
A single to table is not a double, triple, or quad. It is a single to table.

If you jump a single over a tabletop and over a 3rd hump, you have tripled over a tabletop.
It is not a quad. There are 3 mounds of dirt. Not 4.

A tabletop is not a double. It is a tabletop. That is why it was called a tabletop in the first place. It is 1 pile of dirt, not 2.

Two tabletops are not a quad. If you jump two tabletops in one leap you have doubled over 2 tabletops.
If you jump two tabletops in two leaps, you have simply jumped two tabletops. You haven't doubled anything, or quaded anything either.
The only time you could run that line is if you are trying to get some pussy and tell a chick that.
But your bros still know all you did was jump two tabletops which still resulted in pee stained underwear.

Its been this way since 1981 that I remember.

|

3/29/2018 10:46 PM

McGrath calls a single-table-single a quad...

|

3/29/2018 10:47 PM
Edited Date/Time: 3/29/2018 11:01 PM

In the video, James went Triple, Quad, Tripled over the tabletop, double.
He didn't quad quad because a tabletop is not two jumps. It is 1 single jump.

Had they cut the center out of the tabletop, then it would have been Triple, Quad, Quad, Double.
To have a quad, you have to have 4 take offs.

?rel=0
|

3/29/2018 10:48 PM

omalley wrote:

Although this thread is likely Dumbgeon-bound, I’d like to call everyone’s attention to just how badass that video of Stewart is...

It's sooo bad ass because he jumped a true quad. smile That's what I mean, the fact that they call things quads that truly aren't weakens the meaning of "quad". Stew's jump is what a quad is all about.

|

Before responding to any post, consider these three things...
1. Context!
2. Context!
3. Context!

3/29/2018 10:52 PM

omalley wrote:

Although this thread is likely Dumbgeon-bound, I’d like to call everyone’s attention to just how badass that video of Stewart is...

jnickell wrote:

It's sooo bad ass because he jumped a true quad. smile That's what I mean, the fact that they call things quads that truly aren't weakens the meaning of "quad". Stew's jump is what a quad is all about.

I feel like you weaken the meaning of a "quad"

|

3/29/2018 10:56 PM

McGinnis_339 wrote:

McGrath calls a single-table-single a quad...

But it's one jump. Not two.
Has anyone ever seen a guy jump a tabletop in 2 jumps?

If you cut the center out a a tabletop, it becomes a double because then it could be ridden as two singles and jumped as one it becomes a double.

A tabletop only has one take off. Therefore it is mathematically a single jump.

Math works. Like gravity.

|

3/30/2018 7:40 AM

omalley wrote:

Although this thread is likely Dumbgeon-bound, I’d like to call everyone’s attention to just how badass that video of Stewart is...

jnickell wrote:

It's sooo bad ass because he jumped a true quad. smile That's what I mean, the fact that they call things quads that truly aren't weakens the meaning of "quad". Stew's jump is what a quad is all about.

McGinnis_339 wrote:

I feel like you weaken the meaning of a "quad"

State your case then McGinnis. If you "feel" like I weaken the meaning, I'd like to know the science behind that feeling.

|

Before responding to any post, consider these three things...
1. Context!
2. Context!
3. Context!