In case you forgot

gnomesayin

Team Owner
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Messages
6,518
Points
793
Wow, Musquin was unstoppable. I'm not necessarily a big fan, but it's cool when anyone can win a million dollars on a dirt bike. He will be a frontrunner for the championship this year for sure.

The track design was poor. They should be able to do better for an event that big.
 

LewTheShoe

Team Owner
Joined
Apr 21, 2016
Messages
3,712
Points
493
I'm somewhat surprised to see several outspoken critics of "gimmicks" in motor racing enjoying Supercross, surely the most spoofed up form of racing this side of Global Rally Cross. I mean, I watch and enjoy it because it's a true contest of skill and it features hard, brass knuckle racing when the gate drops. But huge compromises were made to sell SX to a crowd that mostly would not venture out to a proper racing venue, and mostly wouldn't enjoy it if they did.

I guess we're all flexible in some ways, and rigid in others, often without much concern for consistency. I think that is OK.
 

gnomesayin

Team Owner
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Messages
6,518
Points
793
I can only speak for myself and to my preferences and tolerances. One can't expect consistency across a group of individuals who are critical but often for different reasons.

I only came to regularly watch Supercross (and MX in general for that matter) in the past 4-5 years. It caught my eye because it was fun and digestible, and then it stuck with me because I appreciated the "true contest of skill" and "hard, brass knuckle racing" in your words that I witnessed. I understand that SX was conceived as a way to make motocross more accessible and stuff it into stadium venues that more casual fans would attend and enjoy.

There are many different formats of motorsports that I accept and enjoy. I grew up on grass roots short track oval racing with its heat and feature races. I'm fine with pretty much any method as long as it is an honest race that seeks to be a meritocracy. It was interesting to read recently that IndyCar's current management is seeking to eliminate "randomness" from its races, and avoid freak circumstances that don't result in the best teams and drivers winning races. While I have several criticisms of how that series is run, I applaud this approach as a guiding vision.

What I object to is when racing promoters seek to do just the opposite in the name of increased entertainment. Races aren't close enough, so they grasp at shortcuts that create the illusion of closer racing and increase the randomness factor. Championship battles aren't close enough, so they do the same there and change the format to ensure a closer but less genuine competition. There are ways to manage a league or series to increase competitiveness and parity. Manipulating the race events themselves to pretend the competition is closer is not an acceptable way to do it IMO, and this is what raises my ire. I'm fine with shorter races, longer races, races on ovals or any design of course (I'm totally fine with the NASCAR Charlotte roval experiment, for instance). Just don't make rules on the track that are specifically designed to artificially 'bunch things up'. That's BS.

Rumors have circulated for several years that a Chase-like format was coming to Supercross. It hasn't happened yet. If it does, I will be dismayed and critical, and it will significantly diminish my interest in the series. If they were to tire of dominant riders winning races by large margins and sought to 'spice up' the action with unnecessary race stoppages, I'd tune out. Feld Motor Sports has been criticized as race promoters because they are viewed as being more about the show than the race. However, with regard to Supercross, they have been restrained regarding what takes place on the track itself. As you say, when the gate drops, the actual racing is pretty damn pure.
 

kyle18fan

Proud member of Rowdy Nation
Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
48,104
Points
683
I can only speak for myself and to my preferences and tolerances. One can't expect consistency across a group of individuals who are critical but often for different reasons.

I only came to regularly watch Supercross (and MX in general for that matter) in the past 4-5 years. It caught my eye because it was fun and digestible, and then it stuck with me because I appreciated the "true contest of skill" and "hard, brass knuckle racing" in your words that I witnessed. I understand that SX was conceived as a way to make motocross more accessible and stuff it into stadium venues that more casual fans would attend and enjoy.

There are many different formats of motorsports that I accept and enjoy. I grew up on grass roots short track oval racing with its heat and feature races. I'm fine with pretty much any method as long as it is an honest race that seeks to be a meritocracy. It was interesting to read recently that IndyCar's current management is seeking to eliminate "randomness" from its races, and avoid freak circumstances that don't result in the best teams and drivers winning races. While I have several criticisms of how that series is run, I applaud this approach as a guiding vision.

What I object to is when racing promoters seek to do just the opposite in the name of increased entertainment. Races aren't close enough, so they grasp at shortcuts that create the illusion of closer racing and increase the randomness factor. Championship battles aren't close enough, so they do the same there and change the format to ensure a closer but less genuine competition. There are ways to manage a league or series to increase competitiveness and parity. Manipulating the race events themselves to pretend the competition is closer is not an acceptable way to do it IMO, and this is what raises my ire. I'm fine with shorter races, longer races, races on ovals or any design of course (I'm totally fine with the NASCAR Charlotte roval experiment, for instance). Just don't make rules on the track that are specifically designed to artificially 'bunch things up'. That's BS.

Rumors have circulated for several years that a Chase-like format was coming to Supercross. It hasn't happened yet. If it does, I will be dismayed and critical, and it will significantly diminish my interest in the series. If they were to tire of dominant riders winning races by large margins and sought to 'spice up' the action with unnecessary race stoppages, I'd tune out. Feld Motor Sports has been criticized as race promoters because they are viewed as being more about the show than the race. However, with regard to Supercross, they have been restrained regarding what takes place on the track itself. As you say, when the gate drops, the actual racing is pretty damn pure.


Pure racing needs no gimmicks IMO Too much attention goes to trying to satisfy young fans .... it can be damaging if not controlled
 
Top Bottom