2024 Red Bull Rampage Chat

It's already happening in the comments... But unfortunately there is no possible, logical, fathomable way to convince people the judges know what they are doing when Zink wins last year and then TVS gets 4th this year. Meanwhile Godziek probably had the best overall and Rampage-esque run, both years, and didn't win. And then a big slope run from Semenuk can win any year.

So, ultimately, if they want to say that which I believe they have ultimately... Then sure a big slope run is the future of Rampage and that's how you win. Copy Semenuk or lose to Semenuk (or whoever does copy him if you don't).

But the Zink vs TVS scoring the past 2 years, mixed with the inability to give Godziek higher/winning scores both years, just says more or less 'depends how we feel that morning'. Maybe even 'we will change the criteria each year/venue, depending on how we feel'. Internally, basically.

Which is another thing. The apparent judges discussion 'round table' concept they seem to have. That PROBABLY needs to go. That sounds really dope for like fest series or smaller events with less money on the line. But I don't like it for what is chalked up as the biggest event of the year with the most earning potential for this cat of riders.

Also, I'm definitely down with ranking instead of scores/numbers. I don't think it will actually change much. And I understand riders may be against it in terms of debating second runs. But I think putting a number on the different styles is hard. And it's easier to just compare amplitude and difficulty to the OTHER riders, more or less. 

Also the video was... Eh, just didn't say much. And I found the side by side thing he did where he compared Brendog and Luke kinda 'tasteless'. He clearly undersells the Brendog run and overhypes the Luke run like its pointless to just... Remind us that your bias leans that way. I think we already knew that. From the results lol. Showing video proof of you having bias doesn't... Make me ok with the bias?

Anyone who criticises Berrecloth after that video is just stupid. Even if you believe yourself to be a better Rampage judge than him, the fact he’s there measuring all the drops and looking at the exposure, and taking these things and more into consideration - you’d have to be unbelievably arrogant to suggest you can do a better job judging than him when watching in compressed 1080p on YouTube. No one on the internet would have the gall to tell Marvin E Goldstein his judgement is wrong, and these top freeriders who’ve competed at Rampage are as proficient in their field as one of NASAs best scientists.

The fact this guy who’s clearly a very good amateur rider has done Fairclough’s line without the canyon flip (and the bottom jumps) on a $500 second hand bike and he’s probably not even had a chance to put heavier oil in the fork or shock, just shows that everything said about Fairclough’s line that he’s the only rider competing at Rampage who could ride it and deserves the win because of this, is clearly not true.

I think that narrative is awkward. But it does justify the scoring and placing a bit more. At the end of the day we aren't seeing what these riders would do on Luke or Talus line or whatever. I suppose the answer is, they're not gonna try it (because of the bike). Or at all? Not sure.

My narrative both this year and last is Godziek was robbed. Brendog was... Maybe mis-scored but not robbed of a podium. (i wanted to put my moeny where my mouth is and rank, not score, riders... and had him 7th; video is on the previous page) so arguably not far off from his 11th. 

Ultimately I think the Brendog narrative which is almost a meme at this point, obfuscated the more salient Godziek was robbed two years in a row of what truly seems like a 1st place Rampage-esque run. Meanwhile TVS can't win with a run similar to what Zink won with last year. And Semenuk can basically win by entering at this point. Meh

The issue is the judging doesn't make sense year on year, but then again maybe thats because Rampage itself doesn't seem to know what it is anymore - lets face it the actual event day is a spectacle, a hype fest, and more of a made for TV event than one thats scheduled to actually allow the riders to thrown down the best runs.

For me the actual concept of a freeride competition doesn't sit right - freeride is ultimately about fun, expression, and pushing the limits, all of which mean differnet things to differnet people. Ultimately its a human on a bike expressing themselves with style on gnarly terrain, and for me events like this should really just be sessions full of stoke. Perhaps thats why the build up and first hit vlogs get me going a bit more, as you are seing something a bit more raw and adrenaline filled than the actual competion runs

As for the riders who hit Brendogs line, i think they are German pros, but if anything all this highlights is that the world of Pro MTB is as much about marketability as it is about talent.

Thats not me belittling Bren - i have always believed that if you put the best riders at the top of a track they had to ride blind he would probably be the fastest given his bike skills,  but the reality is there are tons of amazing riders out there capable of hitting that level of gnar who just haven't got the exposure.

There is no way the likes of Zink or Strait are still at the top of the freeride game - still great riders but there are lots of kids who are better.

Tom Isted is a good example of a new rider who has blown up in the media recently, but has also been blowing minds under the radar for years, and there are plenty more riders like him who could put down something special in the Utah desert.

Really what makes a good rampage rider is as much about how they ride the line, as their ability to just hit it. 

"No one on the internet would have the gall to tell Marvin E Goldstein his judgement is wrong... one of NASAs best scientists."

May I submit for your consideration theflatearthsociety.org/

Rofl, if he was actually "measuring exposure" surely Brendog would've won easily last year.

Ultimately people are downplaying how 'unknown' Isted and Stark were before they got their shots at Rampage/Fest Series.

And people are downplaying (up-playing?) how well they think these guys would do at rampage and/or if they could flip the canyon.

One of the most compelling narratives I've seen is the idea of judges knowing what the line is gonna be , effectively, and telling the rider more or less what the max score will be for it (considering Brendog felt he nailed his run outside of adding a nearly pointless trick to the flip in the flats)

And in those regards Bearclaw said things like that have been shot down by upper management, but he's been open to various things like ranking instead of scoring and all that. I'm just... Well who is that then? RB event coordinator? Who do we shift blame to? (grabs pitchfork)

Ultimately I think the COMMENTS of his youtube video are more telling than anything surrounding this event, since he's in good faith responding to people. But the responses seem to be, over and over again, 'oh we would but big boss RB says no'. Sooo... I dunno let's make an online petition and tell big boss RB to give their balls a tug and fix it errr? TEAM ROBOT would send it  

Calling the guy who just hit Brendan Faircloughs line an "amateur" is a bit disrespectful. He's an accomplished pro freerider in his own right. That's like calling Dak Norton an "amateur" DH racer just because he sometimes can't quite match the pace of Loic Bruni.

I dunno, was Dylan Stark actually really unknonw beforehand? At least in my circle of friends everyon knew the name after Real Heat 1 & 2.

Re. judging at Rampage: I think ultimately what doesn't sit right with people is the "old boys club" element and the fact that scoring seems incredibly random and inconsistent. I'm not sure that could be fixed with rule changes. Probably needs a new panel of judges too.

Couldn't agree more. That's the problem, really. Rampage is stuck squarely in the middle of an identity crisis. Before any other changes are being made, Redbull first needs to figure out what they actually want their event to be.

I dunno, if they want their event to be something people are still talking about weeks later it seems to me they nailed it.

this actually wonderfully makes my point to an extent. Real Heat was AFTER he got his YT sponsorship and started his Rampage bid with getting into proving grounds, maybe due to real heat.

and the reason I love to bring Stark up in this context is he was a dirt poor BMXer with no real help or incentive to MTB really. i forget what he had originally but theres a video of him doing a demo on a Slayer... then Semenuk saw him shredding and I wouldn't be surprised if he'd snapped whatever old bike he was riding at the time, so Semenuk gave him an old frame to start on. very thematically on point with the 'bought a cheap Maiden for 500' story

He transferred his skills very well and was well on his way long before YT/real heat: https://youtu.be/36aDT_D5Hcc?si=ImsCJOAQ22N0zygz&t=561 

And thats the point, as a marketing exercise its a total win for Red Bull, and its the price you pay to see the action go down. As we have seen in downhill if you have to dance with devil, then better the devil you know with Red Bull.

At least with Redbull they tend to take the athletes view on board, and a key part of their marketing strategy is that they try and remain as true to the core principals of whatever they are getting involved in, rather than trying to change up the game too much.

Its great that in this day and age of risk averseness we (and the riders) still get the opportunity for events like this to go ahead.

The world we live in. And the reason why Redbull will probably invite Fairclough back. And the reason why he'll probably say yes.

Personally I thought it was the best rampage ever!!!  Except the wind.  Would've been nice to see more second runs.  Also the broadcast was what 9 hrs?  Greatly appreciate the commitment from everyone involved to keep the magic of a live event.

Totally support it being on ESPN plus but why geo restrict it on RedBull.  Just let people use their preferred app.  Or they will just circumvent you or not watch live.

I find most the people calling foul about judging comical.  Semenuk won again with his winning line from the same venue by massively increasing the technicality and execution.  Like Spoomer pointed out with his throwback article.  The argument of what rampage is to the fans and riders is nothing new.

I fully support a new event called Redbull Grampage.  No sandbags.  No water.  Very short dig period.  Only wooden features allowed are skinny drops, small ramps which are taken down after event.  Dylan Stark can bring his handrail.  Trick and style categories are combined to make a smaller impact on overall score.

Don't think it's been posted here yet--I found Caleb Holonko's insights into the building, riding & judging processes to be among the most thoughtful and informed I've read/heard so far. 

https://nsmb.com/articles/talking-rampage-and-judging-with-caleb-holonko/

And once again the great insights of Caleb get thrown into the washer with the whole 'unknowns ride Brens line' (even tho the 'unknowns' seem very known in the community and are clearly expert or semi-pro riders, one being on Propain?). I think he did a good job clearing the TVS vs Zink narrative which I'm still slightly iffy on but its not like his reasoning was unsound. Its more so I call in to question that element of judging. Particularly because we are still comparing a FRONTflip to a backflip. At the end of the day I don't think I expect a rider to attempt a frontflip like that... If they were on how Cams line was built. I dunno. More apples to oranges than its made out to be. (And similarly iffy on the 'they had years to practice price is right' thing... I understand the sound reasoning and I can take away just a flip on it for that reason, but I CAN'T punish a front flip off it because the 'feature existed' for so long.)

Oh he ranked Brendog exactly where I did on my little practice ranking video earlier... NVM EVERYTHING CALEB SAID IS GOSPEL

I think he danced around the judging changes quite well. It was the most respectful and long-winded way of saying YES, THE JUDGES SHOULD BE CHANGED. Cycling out the most veteran guys. Just like political term limits. And maybe even having a rotating/cycling cast of dudes and having more diversity. I always felt like... Nico was a 'young judge' for Rampage and the reality is by now he's not a young rider anymore. Get a younger wild card judge in there. Brage. Kaos. Kade. (Is there a rule you cant be sponsored by RB to judge?) Doesn't really matter to me. Mix it up. At the end of the day if it is a 'problem' to remove any of the judges... THAT INHERENTLY IS A PROBLEM. That convinces me like nothing else that they do need to be removed. If there's a social taboo against it...

Scenario #1: Imagine you went out to dinner at a new place with some friends, and ordered a bunch of different things off the menu to share. Without any additional coaxing, you'd probably naturally make comparisons and rankings between the things you tried. "I liked this one because ____" or "I didn't like that because ______." There'd be table favorites among the group and noted losers. If someone asked your table to rank all the items from best to worst, you could do it pretty easily. There'd be some disagreements, but that's okay. Taste is inherently subjective.

Scenario #2: Now imagine going out to that same meal and someone (who isn't at your table) makes you and your friends fill out a worksheet, assign points, and do math for everything you taste, and everyone has to do the worksheet, points, and math by themselves. Points are only assigned for four categories, categories that weren't created or chosen by anyone in your group. Your math from each worksheet will be compiled after each dish, which you'll taste, rate, and rank one by one.

I don't know about you, but giving me a worksheet, math, and arbitrary categories isn't going to change what I taste or what I like. Filling out the worksheet, I'm just going to work backwards from my same conclusions from scenario #1, and I'll do the math as I go to make sure it all adds up the way I'd like. If something comes out later that I really like, I'll have to work really hard to get my math to add up as I slot it into place ahead of or between other high ranking items. "This mushu pork gets a 24.98 on tang!" It's not like I'm going to follow the step by step process on the points and realize "Oh man, according to this math it turns out I actually loved the brown rice dish that I didn't like when I was eating it. It scored off the charts on our third category: toothiness!"

Points are dumb. They add nothing. I think they almost certainly force mental gymnastics for the judges, and make an already pressurized and constrained judging process more pressurized and constrained. Points give the process an air of objectivity and political cover for those controversial moments, but it's all subjective. There's nothing objective about it. It's judged.

I think being clear about the values of the judges before the contest is helpful and clarifying, so why not lean into that and share what each individual judge values or appreciates? They're all individuals. Some judges will care more about style, some will appreciate straight huckin it, some are technical trick wizards in their own right. Tell that story. Then let them hash it out and show us the process. When Bender and Berrecloth were both judges, I'm not dumb enough to think they value the same things. Embrace the human element. You're not ROBOTS.

Exactly, and if you are going to do points... I know it won't change much but you would have to implement a system of asking the rider what their line is (they can withhold information if they want to risk shock factor like that) and the judges outright deliver them a max score if they do it perfectly like gymnastics scoring. It's crystal clear that if Bren did the nac during his backflip it wasn't even going to add to the score tbh. So apparently Brens max score, with all the context the judges had, was ALWAYS going to be 76. I think a rider needs to know that. Ahead of time. So they can adjust accordingly (although at an event like Rampage how much can you change once its ready for finals?)... The reality is I don't see that ever happening for a whole variety of reasons.

So yeah, just make it ranking. No 'points'. Although Claw already said the idea was pitched to RB and shot down (online petition roping in from the rafters) bah god is that democracys music!?

I still don't know how to feel about the "we thought about that but RB shot it down" narrative that is everywhere in Claw's youtube comments section. Is that true? Is it a bent truth and nobody really tried (that hard)? Is that a big issue, that RB doesn't want ANY change? It seems both viewers and riders agree that SOME change is needed. So changing nothing seems like a spit in the face to practically everyone.

The only utility I potentially see for points is with the competitors and the decision to take a second run.

Let us say two riders both complete a top to bottom run 1 and are slotted next to each other in the rankings. Rider A tricks every major feature in their line and has no discernible hiccups. Rider B leaves a feature or two high on the mountain un-tricked, or has a slight bobble.

If Rider A's score was an 87.5 and Rider B's score was an 87.0, Rider B might be more likely so elect to take a second run because if they make some minor improvements they could easily leap frog Rider A in the results.

If Rider A's score was an 87.5 and Rider B's score was an 83.0, Rider B might be less likely so elect to take a second run because even if they make some minor improvements they probably wouldn't make up the 5 points need to improve their positioning.

Without some type of 'score' the competitors have no way of knowing how comparable two runs are within the greater rank order.

I am a fan of lepigpen