When did it all change?

If I had to point to a singular moment, I’d honestly say it was when the most popular rider at the time and arguably most talented ever decided to go SX only after an undefeated MX season.

I think it all started with McGrath. He made SX so special and made a lot of $ from being the King. Every kid after him wants to be just like him. Big stadiums, big crowds and lots of fame for a 15 minute main.

I see a lot of people using the focus on Supercross as an excuse for getting bested by GP riders, but didn't guys like RC and RV race just as much supercross as todays riders yet still be the fastest outdoor guys in the world and kick everyones butt at MXoN?

1979 for me.. My Dad built us a full on SX track modeled after one of the LA Coliseum tracks.. By 1981 it had tabletops up to 100 foot across(quarry access roads between the gravel pits),doubles, triples, bowl berms and gnarly whoops and road gaps cut into the quarry walls. We had a series of 6 jumps that were double double double or now and then triple double single.

Being he owned a 700 acre sized rock and sand quarry, we could build anything we wanted anytime we wanted.
We built whatever we saw on TV. Our 4 minute long outdoor circuit is still there too. Complete with 2 creek crossings and 1 river crossing(when its low enough)

twizzler wrote:

I think it all started with McGrath. He made SX so special and made a lot of $ from being the King. Every kid after him wants to be just like him. Big stadiums, big crowds and lots of fame for a 15 minute main.

This.

I would love to know how much more a guy gets paid for supercross vs the nationals. Why is there so much more money in SX vs MX? Why did that change happen here?

SX has been the focus since the early 80s!

At what point did the Nationals go to one day format? At what point did they all start to import mulch?

No doubt in my mind if the track was "normal" Red Budd the Americans do better...

Supercross has been the American focus since at least the early 80's, but in those days it was an asset. Supercross races are basically sprints, and American riders caried that mentality into motocross races. Back in the early 80's Europeans treated motocross races more like endurance races, so when American riders showed up giving it 100% from the moment the gate dropped, it caught it them off guard. Of course, the Europeans finally caught on, but by that point the Americans had such a deep pool of riders to pick from it made it hard for the smaller European countries to find three riders of sufficient skill to be a real threat.

While Supercross has continued to grow in popularity in the US, motocross has never really expanded beyond it's hardcore fanbase. Meaning that more and more emphasis has been placed on riders doing well in the former, to the point that Supercross specialists, like Brayton, have had an easier time finding rides than motocross specialists, like Nicoletti.

This problem is compounded by the fact that Supercross and Motocross have become so different that they are hardly recognizable as the same sport. In other words, Supercross has become a liability at events like des Nations.

I don't think the US focus on Supercross is the problem. As others have said, Supercross has dominated here for decades, but we continued to win at the MXoN until recently.

The problem is with the uniformity of the US tracks, both outdoors and indoors. Every outdoor track surface is prepared the same way, but on top of that, every Supercross track is the same combination of standard, boring obstacles. So basically, our guys are really good at stadium whoops, the Supercross Triple, and some rhythm sections. The Euros have gotten better at everything else.

smee113 wrote:

Supercross has been the American focus since at least the early 80's, but in those days it was an asset. Supercross races are basically sprints, and American riders caried that mentality into motocross races. Back in the early 80's Europeans treated motocross races more like endurance races, so when American riders showed up giving it 100% from the moment the gate dropped, it caught it them off guard. Of course, the Europeans finally caught on, but by that point the Americans had such a deep pool of riders to pick from it made it hard for the smaller European countries to find three riders of sufficient skill to be a real threat.

While Supercross has continued to grow in popularity in the US, motocross has never really expanded beyond it's hardcore fanbase. Meaning that more and more emphasis has been placed on riders doing well in the former, to the point that Supercross specialists, like Brayton, have had an easier time finding rides than motocross specialists, like Nicoletti.

This problem is compounded by the fact that Supercross and Motocross have become so different that they are hardly recognizable as the same sport. In other words, Supercross has become a liability at events like des Nations.

Well said...

TropicPilot wrote:

I don't think the US focus on Supercross is the problem. As others have said, Supercross has dominated here for decades, but we continued to win at the MXoN until recently.

The problem is with the uniformity of the US tracks, both outdoors and indoors. Every outdoor track surface is prepared the same way, but on top of that, every Supercross track is the same combination of standard, boring obstacles. So basically, our guys are really good at stadium whoops, the Supercross Triple, and some rhythm sections. The Euros have gotten better at everything else.

Bingo!

SX is so spectator friendly. Really, its ideal for sponsors etc.
And in the end, people want to get paid.