Supersquid191
Member
- Mar 17, 2004
- 9
- 0
Does anyone else think that supercross tracks have gotten too technical and that it's bringing the sport down?
Every time they build a less-technical supercross track, the racing is much closer, there's more passing and the whole race is more exciting. Plus, there are less injuries. It seems that most debilitating injuries occur in the highly technical rhythm sections.
I really wish they would tame down the tracks a little and tighten up the racing. I'm extremely bored with supercross lately. Watching the same guy win every week and pull a massive points lead isn't fun.
And while I'm complaining about the tracks, why does every track look the same? What happened to the sand? How about an all sand supercross track like Florida in '89? And why does every finish line jump have to be a table top? Why does every track have two triples placed in the same spot?
I'd like to see them replicate some of the supercross tracks from the 80s and early 90s. That'd be interesting.
Anyone else in the same boat, or am I alone on this?
Every time they build a less-technical supercross track, the racing is much closer, there's more passing and the whole race is more exciting. Plus, there are less injuries. It seems that most debilitating injuries occur in the highly technical rhythm sections.
I really wish they would tame down the tracks a little and tighten up the racing. I'm extremely bored with supercross lately. Watching the same guy win every week and pull a massive points lead isn't fun.
And while I'm complaining about the tracks, why does every track look the same? What happened to the sand? How about an all sand supercross track like Florida in '89? And why does every finish line jump have to be a table top? Why does every track have two triples placed in the same spot?
I'd like to see them replicate some of the supercross tracks from the 80s and early 90s. That'd be interesting.
Anyone else in the same boat, or am I alone on this?