When did a tabletop start counting as 2 jumps?

JW381 wrote:

How many landings are there? A single doesn't have a takeoff and a landing. Those tabletops, no matter how small they are, do have a takeoff...

How many landings are there? A single doesn't have a takeoff and a landing. Those tabletops, no matter how small they are, do have a takeoff and a landing. Therefore takeoff + 3 possible landings = a quad.

JW381 wrote:

How many landings are there? A single doesn't have a takeoff and a landing. Those tabletops, no matter how small they are, do have a takeoff...

How many landings are there? A single doesn't have a takeoff and a landing. Those tabletops, no matter how small they are, do have a takeoff and a landing. Therefore takeoff + 3 possible landings = a quad.

aFACEdismembered wrote:

Right, if you jump you have to land somewhere haha. Counting a table as 1 doesn't work like that when counting landing options. If you make...

Right, if you jump you have to land somewhere haha. Counting a table as 1 doesn't work like that when counting landing options.

If you make a table a camelback it is now a triple step over. But all you did was add an additional landing on the top of that table. How did a table magically turn in to a triple with no pits dug out and no lips added?! The landing options, that's why.

Outsider wrote:

This might make some people's heads explode, but a step-down table is actually a triple....


Kaboom!

EmDub425 wrote:

i can see that reasoning Top of Table =1 Backside of table =2 backside of next single =3 + takeoff = quad best possible explanation i've...

i can see that reasoning

Top of Table =1

Backside of table =2

backside of next single =3

+ takeoff = quad

best possible explanation i've heard yet


But for as long as SX has been around there have been finish line jumps that are a single over a tabletop. Iv'e never heard of that jump combo as a triple. I consider that a double.

EmDub425 wrote:

i can see that reasoning Top of Table =1 Backside of table =2 backside of next single =3 + takeoff = quad best possible explanation i've...

i can see that reasoning

Top of Table =1

Backside of table =2

backside of next single =3

+ takeoff = quad

best possible explanation i've heard yet


But for as long as SX has been around there have been finish line jumps that are a single over a tabletop. Iv'e never heard of that jump combo as a triple. I consider that a double.

nrosso391 wrote:

Best description of this terrible topic. ITS A QUAD. You don't count the dirt mounds. you count the take-off + the landing areas. The step-down table...

Best description of this terrible topic. ITS A QUAD. You don't count the dirt mounds. you count the take-off + the landing areas. The step-down table comment has me in aw though...

brocster wrote:

so if you land on the flat in between the two mounds of dirt of the finish line you are actually doubling it using your logic...

so if you land on the flat in between the two mounds of dirt of the finish line you are actually doubling it using your logic??? or if you jump the whole thing is it also a "quad" since you can technically land on the backside of the take off (1) on the flat in between (2) backside second mound (3) + takeoff = (4)

MX Guy wrote:

[img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2017/03/20/182560/s1200_IMG_1396.jpg[/img] What a dinosaur of a thread, interesting debate though. I see a double on, double off. Jumping the entirety of two doubles has always been...

What a dinosaur of a thread, interesting debate though. I see a double on, double off. Jumping the entirety of two doubles has always been a quad therefor I consider the thing a quad. You have to count the table as a jump with two landings because there are two landings, one being on top and the other being the downside. It may be one jump, but it's one jump with two landings. This equals a quad when clearing all the way over it. If you disagree I guess you're going against traditional moto-speak.

To add-

Landing on top, rolling down and then rolling the final single would be going 2-1 imo. Not sure how to explain that one as it makes my brain melt a little. Backside the table and then roll the single is 3-1.

brocster wrote:

so if you land on the flat in between the two mounds of dirt of the finish line you are actually doubling it using your logic...

so if you land on the flat in between the two mounds of dirt of the finish line you are actually doubling it using your logic??? or if you jump the whole thing is it also a "quad" since you can technically land on the backside of the take off (1) on the flat in between (2) backside second mound (3) + takeoff = (4)

MX Guy wrote:

It's about the intent of the design. Is the table being used more than one way by design? If not then it's just one landing. If...

It's about the intent of the design. Is the table being used more than one way by design? If not then it's just one landing. If the option to double off the table is there, this creates another jump. Does it not? Two on, two off. 2+2=4. You're welcome.

Take a look at my diagram explanation.

MX Guy wrote:

[img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2017/03/20/182560/s1200_IMG_1396.jpg[/img] What a dinosaur of a thread, interesting debate though. I see a double on, double off. Jumping the entirety of two doubles has always been...

What a dinosaur of a thread, interesting debate though. I see a double on, double off. Jumping the entirety of two doubles has always been a quad therefor I consider the thing a quad. You have to count the table as a jump with two landings because there are two landings, one being on top and the other being the downside. It may be one jump, but it's one jump with two landings. This equals a quad when clearing all the way over it. If you disagree I guess you're going against traditional moto-speak.

To add-

Landing on top, rolling down and then rolling the final single would be going 2-1 imo. Not sure how to explain that one as it makes my brain melt a little. Backside the table and then roll the single is 3-1.

731chopper wrote:

Bingo!

TeamGreen wrote:

We use the term "on-off".

TeamGreen wrote:

We use the term "on-off".

MX Guy wrote:

Your response is irrelevant

EmDub425 wrote:

i'm dead serious. Ive' been racing for 25 year so I'm not some newb here. I'm honestly trying to figure out how 3 jumps equals a...

i'm dead serious. Ive' been racing for 25 year so I'm not some newb here. I'm honestly trying to figure out how 3 jumps equals a quad? The only thing I can think of is they are counting the table top as 2 jumps. But if you are going to do that they you have to refer to a single over a table as a triple not a double. Which I've never heard anyone do.

MX Guy wrote:

[img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2017/03/20/182560/s1200_IMG_1396.jpg[/img] What a dinosaur of a thread, interesting debate though. I see a double on, double off. Jumping the entirety of two doubles has always been...

What a dinosaur of a thread, interesting debate though. I see a double on, double off. Jumping the entirety of two doubles has always been a quad therefor I consider the thing a quad. You have to count the table as a jump with two landings because there are two landings, one being on top and the other being the downside. It may be one jump, but it's one jump with two landings. This equals a quad when clearing all the way over it. If you disagree I guess you're going against traditional moto-speak.

To add-

Landing on top, rolling down and then rolling the final single would be going 2-1 imo. Not sure how to explain that one as it makes my brain melt a little. Backside the table and then roll the single is 3-1.

731chopper wrote:

Bingo!

singletotable88 wrote:

Every tabletop is just a single. Use that as your guide and you are always right. If you have any balls that is. Posers rack the...

Every tabletop is just a single. Use that as your guide and you are always right. If you have any balls that is. Posers rack the count up as high as possible. They get really stoked and slap each other's ass for a good game. Better get back to the shower to wash off. Those big "quads" got us really dirty.

IWreckALot wrote:

Yeah seriously, I think TG just got into this dirt bike sport last season based on the way he talks. Pfffftttttttt.

TeamGreen wrote:

We use the term "on-off".

MX Guy wrote:

Your response is irrelevant

singletotable88 wrote:

Every tabletop is just a single. Use that as your guide and you are always right. If you have any balls that is. Posers rack the...

Every tabletop is just a single. Use that as your guide and you are always right. If you have any balls that is. Posers rack the count up as high as possible. They get really stoked and slap each other's ass for a good game. Better get back to the shower to wash off. Those big "quads" got us really dirty.

Ransom_Bennett wrote:

So a 90 foot table top is just a single?

Ransom_Bennett wrote:

So a 90 foot table top is just a single?