We all saw recently that Grant Langston and Chad Reed are starting a rider's representative group. I couldn't be happier. I don't know those guys nor do I pretend to speak for them to any degree, but we're all motivated by the same thing. We need to do something about the safety of our sport. We've taken the "extreme sport" status far enough. The tendency of humanity is to push all limits. Motocrossers are part of humanity. If a little is good then more is better and lots more is better yet. We've pushed our track designs over the years. Outdoor tracks have supercross obstacles (and worse) and supercross tracks are more brutally penalizing than ever.
As someone that has been involved in the sport since the mid 70s, I've seen many changes, good and bad. The modern motocross track is made for fans and sponsors outside of the mainstream of the sport. The average non-racer, energy drink consumer wouldn't get excited by watching the RedBud grass track race or races on any of the tracks that popped up all over the world for the first 35 years of this sport's history. By making the tracks more appealing to outside sponsorship, we've made them less appealing to the majority of actual riders. In the late 70s motocross bike sales were much higher than they are today. Tracks in the midwestern U.S., where I live, routinely had rider turnouts 2 or 3 times larger than typically seen today. The likely reasons are many (cost?), but certainly the severity of the tracks for the average rider has to be one culprit. The many riders that filled up the novice class gates historically are scared away from the sport because of the skill level it can require to make one safe lap. There really is no novice class like I remember it in the formative years of our sport. The class for real beginners is all but gone. Today's "C" class riders are clearing giant doubles and exhibiting skills far superior to the majority of the riders that filled the gates in past years. This is because many real entry level riders, and I mean adults, not 6 year olds, are afraid to even venture out on a track with intimidating jumps and a high possibility for great injury. This is bad for our sport. When you cut your supply of entry level riders you cut your possible supply of expert riders.
Perhaps more importantly is that parents are scared away. With the great television exposure of our "extreme" sport today, every parent of every 12 year old boy knows what motocross is, or thinks they do. When you tell a lay-person that you race motocross, the first thing they'll say is "that's the sport where you jump really high....that's crazy!" This alone scares away many responsible parents and their kids. Even when the tracks were primarily natural terrain the concept of letting your child race a dirt bike was prohibitively frightening for most parents. Think about all of your friends that are not (or were not) allowed to have a dirt bike. Do you think that the exposure of motocross on TV today as an extreme sport has helped or hurt the reputation of our sport as a safe pursuit for your child? Real motocross frustratingly shares its identity with freestyle jump contests where the single intent is to do something as dangerous as possible without crashing. Racers, on the other hand, are rewarded for riding the track as fast as they can while doing it as safely as possible. The reasons to compete or spectate in either can be quite different.
We need to do something with our sport to return the appeal to racers, not daredevils and outsiders. I would propose that we no longer allow jumps with landing ramps on motocross tracks. Go back to tracks where you can only jump as far as you are willing to flat-land or as far as the natural terrain will safely allow. The result will be the evaporation of the concept of a double/triple/quad. As a result, jump angles and heights will flatten dramatically, and the physical penalty of coming up short will go away as well. Sure, tabletops common on today's motocross track are a safer alternative than the high penalty true double jump, but still they encourage very high launch angles and jumps of great distances. Return to really rough tracks and longer motos that separate the talent and fitness that we all appreciate. Look at some old footage of Unadilla if you want to see a good example of a very rough track long before we cared so much about grooming motocross tracks. Such a change may sound drastic but it is not unprecedented in world class motorsports. One only needs to look at how the NHRA shortened the length of the drag strip from 1320 feet to 1000 feet for the fastest classes after they had seen enough tragedy. Many have said that it was a small step. There is no argument that it was a step.
I understand the reasons these ideas wil not be a popular for some. First, many of today's racers are comfortable with the excitement of big jumps. Modern riders themselves identify motocross with jumps as much or more than they do negotiating tricky natural terrain and the fitness required to endure 2 long motos. Jumping is the sport they have learned. Everyone likes jumping high in the air and doing a cool whip for your girlfriend. Still, given a chance, I think even younger riders would find that a return to natural terrain would provide them with a track on which they could attack each and every section as opposed to many of the "fixed speed" obstacles seen at today's tracks. On a natural terrain track you gain time on your opponents by leaving the gas on longer or finding a smoother line through the bumps rather than slightly more economically scrubbing speed over a fixed speed obstacle.
Another reason that will be offered against a return to traditional motocross tracks is that it could negatively impact outside sponsorship revenue. The average non-racer, energy drink consumer doesn't understand the grueling nature of the sport so we've fallen victim to making the action flashy for them. Watching guys riding around a really rough track with little air time doesn't interest the non-racer. The stylish nature and riskiness of big air launches is something that non-racers can be entertained by for 1 hour on TV. I agree that removing the stunt aspects could negatively impact our mass appeal and as a result, outside sponsorship. This is a chance that we'll have to take if we are interested in improving the safety of our riders. In the end, as mentioned above, improving the safety should actually draw in more riders and potentially offset some of the lost revenues or overcome them altogether in time. I know there are lots of industry people that live on the tremendous revenues brought into our sport from the outside. For that reason, bringing in non-motocross related sponsorship was a long-time goal in our sport. No doubt, that such a revenue loss would impact many good people in our sport. We see a taste of this today as our sport weathers the economic downturn. That said, for the common weekend racer, the sport is not much different whether or not it is on TV or there is a green logo spray painted on the track 12 times a year for our professional riders. No matter the amount of outside revenue there will be manufacturers, niche aftermarket providers and tracks to ride. There was literally zero outside sponsorship for many years. Motocross bike sales were very high and the core racers and fans thrived.
In fact, my point is that if we continue to turn this into an exclusive sport for only the most talented and high risk takers we in fact jeopardize the future of the sport in its entirety.
As someone that has been involved in the sport since the mid 70s, I've seen many changes, good and bad. The modern motocross track is made for fans and sponsors outside of the mainstream of the sport. The average non-racer, energy drink consumer wouldn't get excited by watching the RedBud grass track race or races on any of the tracks that popped up all over the world for the first 35 years of this sport's history. By making the tracks more appealing to outside sponsorship, we've made them less appealing to the majority of actual riders. In the late 70s motocross bike sales were much higher than they are today. Tracks in the midwestern U.S., where I live, routinely had rider turnouts 2 or 3 times larger than typically seen today. The likely reasons are many (cost?), but certainly the severity of the tracks for the average rider has to be one culprit. The many riders that filled up the novice class gates historically are scared away from the sport because of the skill level it can require to make one safe lap. There really is no novice class like I remember it in the formative years of our sport. The class for real beginners is all but gone. Today's "C" class riders are clearing giant doubles and exhibiting skills far superior to the majority of the riders that filled the gates in past years. This is because many real entry level riders, and I mean adults, not 6 year olds, are afraid to even venture out on a track with intimidating jumps and a high possibility for great injury. This is bad for our sport. When you cut your supply of entry level riders you cut your possible supply of expert riders.
Perhaps more importantly is that parents are scared away. With the great television exposure of our "extreme" sport today, every parent of every 12 year old boy knows what motocross is, or thinks they do. When you tell a lay-person that you race motocross, the first thing they'll say is "that's the sport where you jump really high....that's crazy!" This alone scares away many responsible parents and their kids. Even when the tracks were primarily natural terrain the concept of letting your child race a dirt bike was prohibitively frightening for most parents. Think about all of your friends that are not (or were not) allowed to have a dirt bike. Do you think that the exposure of motocross on TV today as an extreme sport has helped or hurt the reputation of our sport as a safe pursuit for your child? Real motocross frustratingly shares its identity with freestyle jump contests where the single intent is to do something as dangerous as possible without crashing. Racers, on the other hand, are rewarded for riding the track as fast as they can while doing it as safely as possible. The reasons to compete or spectate in either can be quite different.
We need to do something with our sport to return the appeal to racers, not daredevils and outsiders. I would propose that we no longer allow jumps with landing ramps on motocross tracks. Go back to tracks where you can only jump as far as you are willing to flat-land or as far as the natural terrain will safely allow. The result will be the evaporation of the concept of a double/triple/quad. As a result, jump angles and heights will flatten dramatically, and the physical penalty of coming up short will go away as well. Sure, tabletops common on today's motocross track are a safer alternative than the high penalty true double jump, but still they encourage very high launch angles and jumps of great distances. Return to really rough tracks and longer motos that separate the talent and fitness that we all appreciate. Look at some old footage of Unadilla if you want to see a good example of a very rough track long before we cared so much about grooming motocross tracks. Such a change may sound drastic but it is not unprecedented in world class motorsports. One only needs to look at how the NHRA shortened the length of the drag strip from 1320 feet to 1000 feet for the fastest classes after they had seen enough tragedy. Many have said that it was a small step. There is no argument that it was a step.
I understand the reasons these ideas wil not be a popular for some. First, many of today's racers are comfortable with the excitement of big jumps. Modern riders themselves identify motocross with jumps as much or more than they do negotiating tricky natural terrain and the fitness required to endure 2 long motos. Jumping is the sport they have learned. Everyone likes jumping high in the air and doing a cool whip for your girlfriend. Still, given a chance, I think even younger riders would find that a return to natural terrain would provide them with a track on which they could attack each and every section as opposed to many of the "fixed speed" obstacles seen at today's tracks. On a natural terrain track you gain time on your opponents by leaving the gas on longer or finding a smoother line through the bumps rather than slightly more economically scrubbing speed over a fixed speed obstacle.
Another reason that will be offered against a return to traditional motocross tracks is that it could negatively impact outside sponsorship revenue. The average non-racer, energy drink consumer doesn't understand the grueling nature of the sport so we've fallen victim to making the action flashy for them. Watching guys riding around a really rough track with little air time doesn't interest the non-racer. The stylish nature and riskiness of big air launches is something that non-racers can be entertained by for 1 hour on TV. I agree that removing the stunt aspects could negatively impact our mass appeal and as a result, outside sponsorship. This is a chance that we'll have to take if we are interested in improving the safety of our riders. In the end, as mentioned above, improving the safety should actually draw in more riders and potentially offset some of the lost revenues or overcome them altogether in time. I know there are lots of industry people that live on the tremendous revenues brought into our sport from the outside. For that reason, bringing in non-motocross related sponsorship was a long-time goal in our sport. No doubt, that such a revenue loss would impact many good people in our sport. We see a taste of this today as our sport weathers the economic downturn. That said, for the common weekend racer, the sport is not much different whether or not it is on TV or there is a green logo spray painted on the track 12 times a year for our professional riders. No matter the amount of outside revenue there will be manufacturers, niche aftermarket providers and tracks to ride. There was literally zero outside sponsorship for many years. Motocross bike sales were very high and the core racers and fans thrived.
In fact, my point is that if we continue to turn this into an exclusive sport for only the most talented and high risk takers we in fact jeopardize the future of the sport in its entirety.
No comments:
Post a Comment