Posts
4506
Joined
9/22/2008
Location
Arlen, TX
US
Edited Date/Time
1/27/2012 12:53pm
America is without a doubt a dominating force in motocross racing worldwide. We have won 21 of the last 31 Motocross of Nations, which is quite an astonishing feat. However, the question why we are so dominate, is rarely ever asked, and to my knowledge, has never been given any sort of explanation.
Scientific studies support that all humans are practically the same, with no race being superior over another. Now considering that most American racers are in America today, because of their ancestors traveled four-thousand miles across the Atlantic Ocean, the answer to this question cannot be found in the biology of the individual racers themselves, but rather by focusing on environmental, and social factors.
The reason some countries are great at motocross, is not explained by how hard their fans can wave a flags with nationalist zeal, our or how hard these fans can bash their adversaries on internet message boards. Instead, the answers have a lot to do with environmental factors: the economic prosperity of the country, population density, interest of the sport, the size of the country in square miles, number of tracks in the country, and the progression level of the sport in said region of the world (which is correlated and connected, to these factors).
For example, do not expect to see a third world country lacking in motocross resources win the Des Nations anytime soon; and the odds of an over-populated country (such as China), who lacks motocross facilities compared to the United States, pulling off a win at the Des Nations, is also just as highly unlikely.
In the last thirty years, only five nations have won the Motocross Des Nations events (US 21, Great Britain 1, Belgium 6, Italy 2, France 1).
As you can see by this map, America is enormously huge in comparison to its closest rivals, as a whole. France itself is a slightly smaller country than the size of Texas, England is close to the size of Kansas, Italy is closest to the size of New Mexico, and Belgium, who has won the second most races in the past thirty years, is about the size of Maryland (source, Wikipedia). This gives America an enormous advantage by being able to pick riders from a talent pool that is nearly ten times in size of the other four countries who have won in the past thirty years, combined. And this is only one of the contributing factors! Just imagine if individual regions, or riders from individual states, such as California, were only allowed to compete...
As mentioned before, economic wealth of a nation is another factor. As you can see by this map, countries that have won in the past thirty years, are environments were people can afford to race and own dirt bikes. Motocross is an enormously expensive sport, so If people can't afford dirt bikes, how are they expected to become professionals in either the AMA, or MXGP series? And it's not just as simple as a few people in a country being able to afford a dirt bike; the more people are racing in a country, the deeper the talent pool becomes, due to the racers competing, learning, and motivating one another. Most racers thank their parents, because they know without them and their support, they wouldn't have had the opportunity to be on television giving podium speeches.
For more food for thought on this subject: does anyone believe if Ricky Carmichael grew up in third world country, without parents who could afford to buy him a dirtbike, and without a competitive group of racers to compete against, that he would hold 15 AMA titles? It would be interesting to hear his answer, especially considering he contributes a lot of his success with the way he was raised...
In conclusion, any country with a motocross resume like America, in regards to the population, wealth, size, and talent pool (to choose from, due to the aforementioned factors) would be expected to have similar results.
This is not in any way intended to discredit the achievements of the racers as individuals. Every racer who competes in the Des Nations represents the world's elite, of the sport; and any racer who wins such an event, has accomplished a feat indescribable by human words. Maybe instead of continuing the constant bickering, and debasing of the world's greatest athletes in the sport, perhaps we should embrace the Motocross Des Nations as a whole, on a global level, rather than a national level, and recognize it for what it is: the best damn racers on the planet racing dirt bikes from different environments.
Europe = 4,010,000 sq2 miles.
USA = 3,790,000 sq2 miles (not north america, USofA)
now, a dose of reality
USA has a population pool of approximately 310,000,000 (give or take 500,000 at any given time)
Europe as a whole has a population pool of 731,000,000 (give or take 500,000 at any given time).
Prolem is, that 731mil is divided up into 50 internationally recognised sovereign states
So, the USA has 310mil to get 3
EU has 731mil divided by 50 or 14,620,000 per country IF you averaged it, to get 3.
Think of it like this.... if there was an MXoUSA and each STATE had to send 3 riders... the larger by population states should statisically always be on top...
Its not as much about money, its not about land size when talking about countries that have an MX community. you have a population pool per country, get 3 of the best. More people = better chance of having 3 top tier.
The Shop
Given our size plus a large middle class (biggest factor in a strong country), we certainly should be winning year after year. How Belgium, France and Italy (among others) keep cranking out elite MX athletes is very impressive and a mystery to me given their size.
Although if California or Florida were counties themselves, I think we'd still be ok.
Unfortunately that seems to be a tricky theory to understand for some.
Where as GB, Ger, Fr, It, Aus, USA has the economic prosperity to have a developing base of riders that can then develope. I was pointing out the main side though.... sheer statistical numbers when all economics, give or take a small amount, is relatively the same.
I'm about to leave, and I probably should have done this before initially posting this thread, but what are the square miles and population density of Belgium, France, England, and Italy. They are the only four countries besides America to win in the past 30 years, and it would be interesting to see how they stack up against America.
I do think wealth and location plays a factor. If people can't afford to race and compete against one another, they are never going to elevate their game through competition. Competition through racing forces others to step it up and progress, vs. if they spent their life practicing by themselves in a field. However, I'm sure all the racers in Europe grow up competing a few times a year in their region of the world, much like Americans get together for the big amateur national events.
People also need to live in places where tracks are available to practice. Take Egypt for example, unless there's a Des Nations race at Southwick, that country (if they even have a team, I'm not sure???) wouldn't have a shot in hell at winning!
Short was taken out by BT in one moto
Canard went down in the first turn and had a bad start in his other moto .
Dungey went 1-1 just cruising around at 80%
USA still won it .
As far as the other four countries who have won in the past thirty years vs. U.S. state size comparison, I'm sure that's accurate.
"France itself is a slightly smaller country than the size of Texas, England is close to the size of Kansas, Italy is closest to the size of New Mexico, and Belgium, who has won the second most races in the past thirty years, is about the size of Maryland"
As I stated in another post, it takes interest, resources, determination and hard work to produce good motocrossers.
"In conclusion, any country with a motocross resume like America, in regards to the population, wealth, size, and talent pool (to choose from, due to the aforementioned factors) would be expected to have similar results.
America has all those things but it does not do well in Soccer. Why? Because there is no interest or little should I say in the sport. This puts a big hole in your theory. But I do agree you have to have some level of resources and wealth to do well in motocross.
Then there is Ernesto Fonseca, a great talent from a poor country. Again, it was his interest that drove him to where he was before his injury. Despite the economics of the country and resources he overcame.
So while America has the money and resources, if it did not have interest, like soccer, we would not do very well. So it is not automaticly expected that a country with our wealth and resources do well, there has to be a cultural or personal interest in the sport, wealth, opportunity, and resources do not automaticly mean success, it is interest, determination, and hard work that counts for the difference between Europe and USA.
Pit Row
That is why is it stupid to conclude the USA are better than all of Europe based on the MXDN team results... just as it is stupid to compare AMA to World Championship on the team results..
Europe's top riders as a whole are just as good as the USA riders and Europe produce as many world class riders too... a ryder cup event would show that.. as did the three best Euro riders at the nations having a better points tally than the three best USA riders. but Desalle, Roczen and Cairoli are from different countries so it doesn't count. The three US riders are from different states yet because it is one country they all ride together... that is the difference... between Europe and USA at the nations. One is a country and the other isn't so....
On a country level USA are the best without a doubt. That is why it is easier for them to win the Team world title as opposed to the individual world title. Because individually the top riders are all very close to each other in ability.
If Europe took on the individual US states they would win most of the time too... but would that mean Dungey is inferior to Carioli because his state would lose to Europe.. no.
But the bottom line is still this - it is a nations race... the USA are the best motocross nation and produce some phenomenal riders and a great national motocross championship that can rival GPs... but it is not because USA people are superior to people from other nations.. it's just a bigger country so they have more riders lol
America in motocross has all the pieces to the puzzle. We do not have those pieces in soccer or we would probably dominate in that sport as well.
Dungey walked away from Cairoli by 5 seconds who is the best and there is debate whether or not Bubba and Villopoto are better than Dungey. Even Short beat Cairoli. When Cairoli went against Villopoto in MXON Cairoli stood no chance of winning, in fact no one did execpt for Carmikel. Sorry, American riders are on a different level than the Euros. You can ask for a world cup all you want and if Bubba, Dungey, and Villopoto beat Cairoli, Roczen and Desalle you would be asking for yet another kind of race. Sorry it is what it is, the MXON is the only thing we have to compare except for other examples of MX2 world champs coming over here and racing our 250 newbies and still not able to get a championship. Americans are better. Sorry. Euros are better at soccer, you won't see an American denying that or asking for another type of competition that would give americians an advantage.
in AC's own words, its online on available to all to listen too at PulpMX.com .... his DREAM is American SX.
this is your world champ and his dream is to race HERE. why? because population pool size aside, there is another reason HERE is where the fastest are... our competition is tougher. it is, you wont admit it, it is. The riders know it, the teams know it, even YS knows it.
We can get 3, subjectively top tier guys due to population pool... we also have faster riders due to competition, otherwise, why would the hands down fastest gp rider on the planet right now DREAM of coming here and why dont guys that are UNARGUABLE the best NOT goto Gp's?
end of that discussion
Post a reply to: Why America Dominates the Des Nations - A Sociological Explanation: