Motocross analysis and insight


The focus of MotoXGraphs is high performance motocross, so the data is limited to results from A, B, and Open classes. While there's probably some predictive data in classes C and below, part of the reason for excluding these is the amount of information is just too big. In the future, possibly all classes could be included. The same reasoning applies to amateur classes for ages 25+.

Only men/boys results are included in the current iteration. Even though they compete against each other at young ages, men/women are isolated on MotoXGraphs because they don't compete at older/professional ages. Hopefully, data for women/girls will be included soon.

The same goes for Supercross. Right now, the analysis isn't ready to include Supercross, but of course this is very important in furthering the overall motocross analysis. Hopefully it will be ready for inclusion soon.

One open issue is about young ages. Are the race results of 4, 5, and 6 year-olds predictive of future success when they become 16, 17, 18? Personally, I find that difficult to believe, but the data-based conclusion is unresolved. The reason behind including those results in the current data analysis is that some of these young racers will grow up to be high-performing pros, whereas the 25+ age races don't include future pros (no offense, but you know what I mean).

Classes have been consolidated and grouped by bike size and age -- the order listed below roughly shows the relative difficulty of the classes:

Some Notes:
- Pro "Upper" means the higher of the two pro classes (now it's 450 = Upper and 250 = Lower, but depending on the year Upper may have been 250 while Lower was 125). "Lower" means the pro class with the smaller bikes.
- Bike divisions with Junior/Senior also have a general class -- such as 65 Jr., 65 Sr., and "65cc", where in this case 65cc is where Jr. or Sr. isn't specified for the race.

Some of the data has issues, be it a typo/error in the original source, a miscoding by me, or a name is misspelled (or perhaps a female was accidentally not excluded). Please let me know any problems you see with the data or questions about what/who/why (or even when/where/how).   Feedback welcomed

Next: What Else?