Dear Pingawhoop-de-doo,
In the last SX season we've seen a large variance on the difficulty level of the whoop section from one race to another. It seems sometimes that a gnarly whoop section was made to spice up a rather one-line boring track. In these circumstances, considering that visibly half of the field is struggling to make this section and that there is nowhere else to make a pass, do you think it is fair to allow this kind of track from a rider standpoint? I know someone with great whoop skills and a holeshot is likely to win and won't complain but what about the other, say top five and up, especially the privateers? Is it making a race based solely on whoop skills? And what about the quality of the show? Should we add a "green laser section" to this kind of track such that spectators could get involved too?
Your wisdom on this matter would be appreciated.
Regards,
Pat
Pat,
There have only been a few whoop sections in the past several years that could compare to the way whoops used to be made. For much of the nineties and early 2000s the most difficult section of the track was the whoops. Not every rider could get through them quickly and even the best riders would make mistakes and have to be able to recover. Somewhere along the way they started to make the whoops look more like speed bumps in a Walgreens parking lot and riders started hitting them in fourth gear flat-out with their eyes closed. I don’t know the reasoning for the “dumbing down” of the most technical obstacle in the course but it is a shame. And I say this as a guy with practically no legs who had to really work on being good in whoops. It didn’t come easy to me like it does for a guy like Davi Millsaps or Kevin Windham, who both have legs longer than most of today’s whoop sections. This isn’t badminton, Pat. If you want to watch a demanding contact sport where athletes are challenged both physically and mentally then stop complaining about big whoops, come to a race and enjoy.
PING
Dear Ping,
What do you think of this idea? Let's beg the AMA and MX Sports or whoever the decision maker is to get rid of the WMX at the nationals and replace it with a 2-stroke series. 4-strokes are for p***ies.
Regards,
Big AL
Al,
I would suggest that small whoop sections are for p***ies, not four-strokes, but I’ll let the Ryans and the rest of the sport’s best know what you think. Aside from that I think you have a fantastic idea and there are plenty of people who would LOVE to see that happen, myself included. Our sport needs a revival of affordable racing and recreating and the answer is dirt bikes from ten years ago. A short two-stroke series would bring out young talent (top amateur riders), old talent (retired old farts like me) and fans who would line the fences to listen to the sound of those bikes and smell the premix. I don’t know about all the politics of it but the fans of the sport would love it. You show me where to sign a petition to make it happen and I’m on it like a transient on a turkey sandwich.
PING
Ping,
Could you please prove me wrong? My friend told me he was reading Electronic Ping when you said 4 strokes were diesels? I believe this was before D Henry won running away.
Mahalo,
A.Flailer
Flailer,
Huh? I said four-strokes were diesels? Bro, I don’t know if your friend was burning down some Maui-wowee that day or if he has glaucoma and misread it after burning down a pile of Maui-Wowee but there is no chance I said that four-strokes were diesels. I’ve said some dumb things in the past. I once asked a girl with a big ole’ boiler when her baby was due. Yeah, that happened. I once told my youngest daughter she could open a bag of Sun Chips during her sister’s school presentation, not realizing the wrapper made more noise than a three-car pileup on the freeway when you opened it. I’ve said these things. But at no time did I ever state that four-strokes, Doug Henry era or more recent, ran on diesel. Hope this clarifies the issue.
PING
Have a question for Ping? Email him at ping@racerxonline.com.
