When did a tabletop start counting as 2 jumps?

brocster
Posts
3608
Joined
6/9/2009
Location
Aliso Viejo, CA US
3/20/2017 11:56am
So a 90 foot table top is just a single?
nrosso391 wrote:
Nicely said. Point made and undeniable!

BOOM!
So in your avatar are you doubling the 90' table??? or tripling it???
MX Guy
Posts
2209
Joined
7/18/2016
Location
Murrieta, CA US
Fantasy
668th
3/20/2017 1:24pm
brocster wrote:
roll the first then launch from face of table over last jump = double or triple???

oh the fun to be had...
I totally missed that option. Roll the first single, jump to the next single from the table is a 1-3 for sure. The table consists of two landings so that's two whether anyone likes it or not and that final single is the third landing making three. 1-3.
brocster
Posts
3608
Joined
6/9/2009
Location
Aliso Viejo, CA US
3/20/2017 1:40pm
triple JUMP
double JUMP
single JUMP

that's all you need to know...

Falcon
Posts
10110
Joined
11/16/2011
Location
Menifee, CA US
Fantasy
798th
3/20/2017 2:53pm
OK guys, I'm going to pull rank on you here. Anyone under the age of 40 is not allowed to disagree. If you are old enough and have a historical perspective, yet still disagree, of course chime in.

I count the takeoffs, not the landing zones, when considering a jump a double or triple. So, a tabletop followed by a single (or vice-versa) is a double. Two tabletops are a double. Three tabletops is a gnarly triple. It doesn't matter that you can land on top of the tabletop; it's still the same body of dirt. You need a second body of dirt to become a double, and a third to be a triple.

My reasoning comes from a lifetime of riding and racing, going back all the way to the early 1980s, and a having been a fan of motorcycles since the '70s. I don't know who the first guy was who jumped a double, (guessing it was Danny Chandler or some maniac like that,) but I do know we considered two jumps a double. Then, dudes started making other things into doubles. ("He totally doubled that!") Whoops could be doubled. "Those two bumps" could be doubled. "That roller after the tabletop... could you double over that?"
One day at my local track, Mike Craig (Christian's dad,) lined up two tabletops and turned them into a gigantic double. Did we call it a quad? No - there were not four jumps there; only two. It's a double.

The Shop

TymeMoto
Posts
647
Joined
3/1/2017
Location
Beverly Hills, CA US
3/20/2017 3:50pm
I understand the argument of counting the number of downsides or places to land completely.

The thing that bothers me is guys taking these lines that have been done forever and all of a sudden calling it a quad. Remember McGrath's 90 foot double in Steel Roots? He called it like he saw it.

Hard for me to see a 50 foot sequence of a supercross table top (step on/step off) with a double just beyond it and call it a quad when 90's tracks had bigger gaps but less jumps.

With the way the tracks are made these days everything becomes single line UNLESS one of these guys "quads" through a section to make up a quarter second.
731chopper
Posts
4080
Joined
1/2/2015
Location
DFW, TX US
Fantasy
442nd
3/20/2017 4:10pm
In order to appease both sides of the argument, I propose that we count a table in any jump combination with one as a double. However, we will add an "-ish" at the end of the word. So, jumping from the face of one table onto the backside of a second table will be called a "quad-ish". Going from a single to the backside of a table or vice versa will be called a "triple-ish".

Any takers?
Bob693
Posts
1393
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
TX US
3/20/2017 4:15pm
Falcon wrote:
OK guys, I'm going to pull rank on you here. Anyone under the age of 40 is not allowed to disagree. If you are old enough...
OK guys, I'm going to pull rank on you here. Anyone under the age of 40 is not allowed to disagree. If you are old enough and have a historical perspective, yet still disagree, of course chime in.

I count the takeoffs, not the landing zones, when considering a jump a double or triple. So, a tabletop followed by a single (or vice-versa) is a double. Two tabletops are a double. Three tabletops is a gnarly triple. It doesn't matter that you can land on top of the tabletop; it's still the same body of dirt. You need a second body of dirt to become a double, and a third to be a triple.

My reasoning comes from a lifetime of riding and racing, going back all the way to the early 1980s, and a having been a fan of motorcycles since the '70s. I don't know who the first guy was who jumped a double, (guessing it was Danny Chandler or some maniac like that,) but I do know we considered two jumps a double. Then, dudes started making other things into doubles. ("He totally doubled that!") Whoops could be doubled. "Those two bumps" could be doubled. "That roller after the tabletop... could you double over that?"
One day at my local track, Mike Craig (Christian's dad,) lined up two tabletops and turned them into a gigantic double. Did we call it a quad? No - there were not four jumps there; only two. It's a double.
This
peelout
Posts
17872
Joined
1/6/2011
Location
Ogden, UT US
3/20/2017 4:34pm Edited Date/Time 3/20/2017 4:35pm
EmDub425 wrote:
The "quad" that James was doing at Oakland was a single, over a table, and landed on the backside of a single. 3 jumps Now we...
The "quad" that James was doing at Oakland was a single, over a table, and landed on the backside of a single. 3 jumps

Now we have this "quad" at the SD track tonight. the takeoff is a table, then over a single and landing on the back of another single. 3 jumps.

So when we have a finish line that is a single over a tabletop that is now a "finish line triple?"

i swear they are making this stuff up so it sounds more dangerous.
oh how the tables have turned.

i propose you submit a counter argument. asap.

on the surface, it sounds like you might not have a leg to stand on.


3/20/2017 4:49pm
Ok guys, maybe it's time we form some sort of committee to settle this thing once and for all. Can't have this debate popping up every few years.
jnickell
Posts
408
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
CA US
Fantasy
1738th
3/20/2017 5:13pm Edited Date/Time 3/20/2017 5:13pm
Falcon wrote:
OK guys, I'm going to pull rank on you here. Anyone under the age of 40 is not allowed to disagree. If you are old enough...
OK guys, I'm going to pull rank on you here. Anyone under the age of 40 is not allowed to disagree. If you are old enough and have a historical perspective, yet still disagree, of course chime in.

I count the takeoffs, not the landing zones, when considering a jump a double or triple. So, a tabletop followed by a single (or vice-versa) is a double. Two tabletops are a double. Three tabletops is a gnarly triple. It doesn't matter that you can land on top of the tabletop; it's still the same body of dirt. You need a second body of dirt to become a double, and a third to be a triple.

My reasoning comes from a lifetime of riding and racing, going back all the way to the early 1980s, and a having been a fan of motorcycles since the '70s. I don't know who the first guy was who jumped a double, (guessing it was Danny Chandler or some maniac like that,) but I do know we considered two jumps a double. Then, dudes started making other things into doubles. ("He totally doubled that!") Whoops could be doubled. "Those two bumps" could be doubled. "That roller after the tabletop... could you double over that?"
One day at my local track, Mike Craig (Christian's dad,) lined up two tabletops and turned them into a gigantic double. Did we call it a quad? No - there were not four jumps there; only two. It's a double.
Bob693 wrote:
This
Falcon is spot on.

Consider the words being used for a moment. Double, Triple, Quad, Tabletop.In the context of motocross, these words refer to obstacles. In order to achieve double anything you must have 2 of what ever it is you are calling a double. A table top is one obstacle. A single is another. The distance is irrelevant.

To add even more to this, does it take the same commitment to go double jump to table top as it does table top to the end of a double? NOPE. SOOOOO much more room for error when the landing jump is a table. A table top is not a single, nor is it a double. It's a table which is a single obstacle.

Calling a "Single to table" a "triple" is disrespectful to all true triples. Come up short on a true triple, and pay a huge price.
MX Guy
Posts
2209
Joined
7/18/2016
Location
Murrieta, CA US
Fantasy
668th
3/20/2017 5:20pm Edited Date/Time 3/20/2017 5:23pm
jnickell wrote:
Falcon is spot on. Consider the words being used for a moment. Double, Triple, Quad, Tabletop.In the context of motocross, these words refer to obstacles. In...
Falcon is spot on.

Consider the words being used for a moment. Double, Triple, Quad, Tabletop.In the context of motocross, these words refer to obstacles. In order to achieve double anything you must have 2 of what ever it is you are calling a double. A table top is one obstacle. A single is another. The distance is irrelevant.

To add even more to this, does it take the same commitment to go double jump to table top as it does table top to the end of a double? NOPE. SOOOOO much more room for error when the landing jump is a table. A table top is not a single, nor is it a double. It's a table which is a single obstacle.

Calling a "Single to table" a "triple" is disrespectful to all true triples. Come up short on a true triple, and pay a huge price.
Please explain to me how doubling onto an "on-off" is a double, but jumping to the downside isn't a triple. This logic has me dumbfounded.

Edit: imagine two singles with an "on-off" at the end. You could triple on, double off or jump all the way over to the downside of the table and make it a quad with a single out. If you move the jumps around your logic fails to compute.
jnickell
Posts
408
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
CA US
Fantasy
1738th
3/20/2017 5:24pm
jnickell wrote:
Falcon is spot on. Consider the words being used for a moment. Double, Triple, Quad, Tabletop.In the context of motocross, these words refer to obstacles. In...
Falcon is spot on.

Consider the words being used for a moment. Double, Triple, Quad, Tabletop.In the context of motocross, these words refer to obstacles. In order to achieve double anything you must have 2 of what ever it is you are calling a double. A table top is one obstacle. A single is another. The distance is irrelevant.

To add even more to this, does it take the same commitment to go double jump to table top as it does table top to the end of a double? NOPE. SOOOOO much more room for error when the landing jump is a table. A table top is not a single, nor is it a double. It's a table which is a single obstacle.

Calling a "Single to table" a "triple" is disrespectful to all true triples. Come up short on a true triple, and pay a huge price.
MX Guy wrote:
Please explain to me how doubling onto an "on-off" is a double, but jumping to the downside isn't a triple. This logic has me dumbfounded. Edit...
Please explain to me how doubling onto an "on-off" is a double, but jumping to the downside isn't a triple. This logic has me dumbfounded.

Edit: imagine two singles with an "on-off" at the end. You could triple on, double off or jump all the way over to the downside of the table and make it a quad with a single out. If you move the jumps around your logic fails to compute.
Two obstacles. Simple as that. Choosing to land on top of the second obstacle instead of the downside doesn't suddenly make it a third obstacle.
brocster
Posts
3608
Joined
6/9/2009
Location
Aliso Viejo, CA US
3/20/2017 5:32pm
Falcon wrote:
OK guys, I'm going to pull rank on you here. Anyone under the age of 40 is not allowed to disagree. If you are old enough...
OK guys, I'm going to pull rank on you here. Anyone under the age of 40 is not allowed to disagree. If you are old enough and have a historical perspective, yet still disagree, of course chime in.

I count the takeoffs, not the landing zones, when considering a jump a double or triple. So, a tabletop followed by a single (or vice-versa) is a double. Two tabletops are a double. Three tabletops is a gnarly triple. It doesn't matter that you can land on top of the tabletop; it's still the same body of dirt. You need a second body of dirt to become a double, and a third to be a triple.

My reasoning comes from a lifetime of riding and racing, going back all the way to the early 1980s, and a having been a fan of motorcycles since the '70s. I don't know who the first guy was who jumped a double, (guessing it was Danny Chandler or some maniac like that,) but I do know we considered two jumps a double. Then, dudes started making other things into doubles. ("He totally doubled that!") Whoops could be doubled. "Those two bumps" could be doubled. "That roller after the tabletop... could you double over that?"
One day at my local track, Mike Craig (Christian's dad,) lined up two tabletops and turned them into a gigantic double. Did we call it a quad? No - there were not four jumps there; only two. It's a double.
Nuff said!

jnickell
Posts
408
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
CA US
Fantasy
1738th
3/20/2017 5:33pm
jnickell wrote:
Falcon is spot on. Consider the words being used for a moment. Double, Triple, Quad, Tabletop.In the context of motocross, these words refer to obstacles. In...
Falcon is spot on.

Consider the words being used for a moment. Double, Triple, Quad, Tabletop.In the context of motocross, these words refer to obstacles. In order to achieve double anything you must have 2 of what ever it is you are calling a double. A table top is one obstacle. A single is another. The distance is irrelevant.

To add even more to this, does it take the same commitment to go double jump to table top as it does table top to the end of a double? NOPE. SOOOOO much more room for error when the landing jump is a table. A table top is not a single, nor is it a double. It's a table which is a single obstacle.

Calling a "Single to table" a "triple" is disrespectful to all true triples. Come up short on a true triple, and pay a huge price.
MX Guy wrote:
Please explain to me how doubling onto an "on-off" is a double, but jumping to the downside isn't a triple. This logic has me dumbfounded. Edit...
Please explain to me how doubling onto an "on-off" is a double, but jumping to the downside isn't a triple. This logic has me dumbfounded.

Edit: imagine two singles with an "on-off" at the end. You could triple on, double off or jump all the way over to the downside of the table and make it a quad with a single out. If you move the jumps around your logic fails to compute.
jnickell wrote:
Two obstacles. Simple as that. Choosing to land on top of the second obstacle instead of the downside doesn't suddenly make it a third obstacle.
So you're saying single, single, table (on off). If that's the case, I would call it a triple. If you're saying single, table (on off), that's a double.

/\ /\ /~~\ = Triple (If the rider lands on the downside of the last obstacle or on top.)

/\ /~~\ = Double (If the rider lands on the downside of the last obstacle or on top.)


Same distance but with 2 obstacles.
MX Guy
Posts
2209
Joined
7/18/2016
Location
Murrieta, CA US
Fantasy
668th
3/20/2017 5:34pm
jnickell wrote:
Two obstacles. Simple as that. Choosing to land on top of the second obstacle instead of the downside doesn't suddenly make it a third obstacle.
Bro... read what I said again. If there's a single-single-on-off section that makes four total landings. The second single, top of the table, the downside and the downside of the final single.

You can 3 on, 2 off or go 4-1. Just because the table is "one jump" doesn't mean it has one landing. There are two landing options. You can't discredit the option of jumping on versus jumping over, you have to add the extra 1 into your math or else it doesn't make sense. A "triple over a tabletop" is just considered a quad. Period. Why make it more complex than it is?
jnickell
Posts
408
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
CA US
Fantasy
1738th
3/20/2017 5:37pm
jnickell wrote:
Two obstacles. Simple as that. Choosing to land on top of the second obstacle instead of the downside doesn't suddenly make it a third obstacle.
MX Guy wrote:
Bro... read what I said again. If there's a single-single-on-off section that makes four total landings. The second single, top of the table, the downside and...
Bro... read what I said again. If there's a single-single-on-off section that makes four total landings. The second single, top of the table, the downside and the downside of the final single.

You can 3 on, 2 off or go 4-1. Just because the table is "one jump" doesn't mean it has one landing. There are two landing options. You can't discredit the option of jumping on versus jumping over, you have to add the extra 1 into your math or else it doesn't make sense. A "triple over a tabletop" is just considered a quad. Period. Why make it more complex than it is?
Read my last response. I didn't see your edit when I first read it.
brocster
Posts
3608
Joined
6/9/2009
Location
Aliso Viejo, CA US
3/20/2017 5:43pm
jnickell wrote:
Two obstacles. Simple as that. Choosing to land on top of the second obstacle instead of the downside doesn't suddenly make it a third obstacle.
MX Guy wrote:
Bro... read what I said again. If there's a single-single-on-off section that makes four total landings. The second single, top of the table, the downside and...
Bro... read what I said again. If there's a single-single-on-off section that makes four total landings. The second single, top of the table, the downside and the downside of the final single.

You can 3 on, 2 off or go 4-1. Just because the table is "one jump" doesn't mean it has one landing. There are two landing options. You can't discredit the option of jumping on versus jumping over, you have to add the extra 1 into your math or else it doesn't make sense. A "triple over a tabletop" is just considered a quad. Period. Why make it more complex than it is?
Forget landing possibilities. The term was derived from singles (obstacles). Linking singles. It's really not that hard to understand.
3/20/2017 5:46pm
Falcon wrote:
OK guys, I'm going to pull rank on you here. Anyone under the age of 40 is not allowed to disagree. If you are old enough...
OK guys, I'm going to pull rank on you here. Anyone under the age of 40 is not allowed to disagree. If you are old enough and have a historical perspective, yet still disagree, of course chime in.

I count the takeoffs, not the landing zones, when considering a jump a double or triple. So, a tabletop followed by a single (or vice-versa) is a double. Two tabletops are a double. Three tabletops is a gnarly triple. It doesn't matter that you can land on top of the tabletop; it's still the same body of dirt. You need a second body of dirt to become a double, and a third to be a triple.

My reasoning comes from a lifetime of riding and racing, going back all the way to the early 1980s, and a having been a fan of motorcycles since the '70s. I don't know who the first guy was who jumped a double, (guessing it was Danny Chandler or some maniac like that,) but I do know we considered two jumps a double. Then, dudes started making other things into doubles. ("He totally doubled that!") Whoops could be doubled. "Those two bumps" could be doubled. "That roller after the tabletop... could you double over that?"
One day at my local track, Mike Craig (Christian's dad,) lined up two tabletops and turned them into a gigantic double. Did we call it a quad? No - there were not four jumps there; only two. It's a double.
I thought you were going a different direction with that. When I hit age 40, a table became a double for me, and when I'm 50, it's gonna be a quad! Laughing
MX Guy
Posts
2209
Joined
7/18/2016
Location
Murrieta, CA US
Fantasy
668th
3/20/2017 5:57pm
brocster wrote:
Forget landing possibilities. The term was derived from singles (obstacles). Linking singles. It's really not that hard to understand.
To understand your way I think I'd have to forget the fact that I passed kindergarten math.
Skidaddle
Posts
1707
Joined
7/19/2016
Location
Woodland, CA US
3/20/2017 6:06pm
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!
brocster wrote:
roll the first then launch from face of table over last jump = double or triple???

oh the fun to be had...
No because if you jumped all three its just a large triple.

Tables are not doubles. They are tables.

MX Guy
Posts
2209
Joined
7/18/2016
Location
Murrieta, CA US
Fantasy
668th
3/20/2017 6:11pm
731chopper wrote:
Bingo!
brocster wrote:
roll the first then launch from face of table over last jump = double or triple???

oh the fun to be had...
Skidaddle wrote:
No because if you jumped all three its just a large triple.

Tables are not doubles. They are tables.

Math is hard dude! Not for everyone, it's okay. I'm sure you're a good color-er.
brocster
Posts
3608
Joined
6/9/2009
Location
Aliso Viejo, CA US
3/20/2017 6:50pm
brocster wrote:
roll the first then launch from face of table over last jump = double or triple???

oh the fun to be had...
Skidaddle wrote:
No because if you jumped all three its just a large triple.

Tables are not doubles. They are tables.

MX Guy wrote:
Math is hard dude! Not for everyone, it's okay. I'm sure you're a good color-er.
MX is even harder and if you have to call a table a double to sound cool-er to your office mates go for it...
MX Guy
Posts
2209
Joined
7/18/2016
Location
Murrieta, CA US
Fantasy
668th
3/20/2017 7:07pm
brocster wrote:
MX is even harder and if you have to call a table a double to sound cool-er to your office mates go for it...
...what?
jnickell
Posts
408
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
CA US
Fantasy
1738th
3/20/2017 7:23pm Edited Date/Time 3/20/2017 7:38pm
With the logic I am reading, a 60' table top can also be considered a 60' double. I really don't see how anyone can agree with that. Like I said earlier, come up short on the double and pay a huge price. Come up short on a table, and well, you came up short on a table. No big deal. It's not a big deal because it's NOT a double.

Calling a Single to Table top a triple is like saying your car will go zero to 60 in 3 seconds but failing to mention it's kph not mph.
731chopper
Posts
4080
Joined
1/2/2015
Location
DFW, TX US
Fantasy
442nd
3/20/2017 7:40pm
jnickell wrote:
With the logic I am reading, a 60' table top can also be considered a 60' double. I really don't see how anyone can agree with...
With the logic I am reading, a 60' table top can also be considered a 60' double. I really don't see how anyone can agree with that. Like I said earlier, come up short on the double and pay a huge price. Come up short on a table, and well, you came up short on a table. No big deal. It's not a big deal because it's NOT a double.

Calling a Single to Table top a triple is like saying your car will go zero to 60 in 3 seconds but failing to mention it's kph not mph.
So do you say you singled a table? I don't think you'd say you doubled a table either though. I'm on the fence now with this topic. It is interesting how serious some people seem to be making it though.
jnickell
Posts
408
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
CA US
Fantasy
1738th
3/20/2017 7:49pm Edited Date/Time 3/20/2017 8:05pm
jnickell wrote:
With the logic I am reading, a 60' table top can also be considered a 60' double. I really don't see how anyone can agree with...
With the logic I am reading, a 60' table top can also be considered a 60' double. I really don't see how anyone can agree with that. Like I said earlier, come up short on the double and pay a huge price. Come up short on a table, and well, you came up short on a table. No big deal. It's not a big deal because it's NOT a double.

Calling a Single to Table top a triple is like saying your car will go zero to 60 in 3 seconds but failing to mention it's kph not mph.
731chopper wrote:
So do you say you singled a table? I don't think you'd say you doubled a table either though. I'm on the fence now with this...
So do you say you singled a table? I don't think you'd say you doubled a table either though. I'm on the fence now with this topic. It is interesting how serious some people seem to be making it though.
I wouldn't say either. I'd say I "cleared" the table, or "jumped" the table. Definitely didn't double it.

Yep. This is serious business. Got to get this lingo in line before it gets way out of hand and people start calling a 5th place start a 5th place holeshot. Wink

731chopper
Posts
4080
Joined
1/2/2015
Location
DFW, TX US
Fantasy
442nd
3/20/2017 8:26pm
jnickell wrote:
I wouldn't say either. I'd say I "cleared" the table, or "jumped" the table. Definitely didn't double it. Yep. This is serious business. Got to get...
I wouldn't say either. I'd say I "cleared" the table, or "jumped" the table. Definitely didn't double it.

Yep. This is serious business. Got to get this lingo in line before it gets way out of hand and people start calling a 5th place start a 5th place holeshot. Wink

Yeah, I agree. That's the way I've always referred to it as well.

Now the 5th place holeshot thing... I can get onboard with that witch hunt. My wife for some reason struggles with that no matter how many times I try to explain it to her.
3/20/2017 8:40pm
You old ass dweebs talk a big game having never jumped a triple, let alone a single onto the backside of a table top(which is also a triple).
Skidaddle
Posts
1707
Joined
7/19/2016
Location
Woodland, CA US
3/20/2017 9:01pm
There is a shirt. Big Doubles, No Troubles.

Her tits are not a table.

Post a reply to: When did a tabletop start counting as 2 jumps?

The Latest