Re: 50@50 - the extra 8 peaks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BGSec
"Each attempt is a personal challenge and a private celebration. The choice of tops and starting points is a matter for each individual." Morgan
The first sentence applies equally to a 42 summit round - the fact that the second sentence doesn't apply means each round is comparable with every other.
If the choice of tops and starting points for 42+ rounds becomes a matter for each individual then it all becomes a bit meaningless - there are easily another 13 top on or very close to the 42 top route that can be added with very little effort.
If the tops don't matter why bother waiting until 50, 55 or 60 to attempt such rounds, why not attempt them much earlier when age will have less of an influence?
If more recent 50@50 rounds were more difficult than the original this wouldn't be an issue but they aren't, some are barely more demanding than the accepted 42 summit round and that was never the original intention. I am not trying to take anything away from those who have completed a 50@50 other than the implied comparison with the early 50@50 rounds.
Re: 50@50 - the extra 8 peaks?
With Ian on this. I do accept that running in the mountains is, a very personal, fulfilling and liberating activity, a major reason I choose to live in the lakes, the pure intrinsic pleasure of fell running.
The BG is a challenge with a prescribed route & its own rules. So should a 50/55/60 be prescribed/semi-prescribed or simply
Re: 50@50 - the extra 8 peaks?
Sorry pressed send on the last post before I'd finished....
With Ian on this. I do accept that running in the mountains is, a very personal, fulfilling and liberating activity, a major reason I choose to live in the lakes, the pure intrinsic pleasure of fell running.
The BG is a challenge with a prescribed route & its own rules. So should a 50/55/60 be prescribed/semi-prescribed? I still believe if a round is an 'extension' of the BG then, a challenge using the BG name/brand (?) needs some definition of what that means which aids clarity & understanding.
50 peaks, whatever they are, is an impressive feat, esp sub 24hrs. A BG50, a BG55, etc would mean a particular route and personally I believe it should reflect the first round, the original 50, as I'm a traditionalist I suppose.
I actually hate the idea of rules and bounderies defining runs in the hills, and maybe a good day out modifying the 42, choosing individually preferred tops, could be argued to be more 'in the spirit' of the round. But for me the early 50 rounds of Hill, Talbot, Sykes, Parkin & Murray defined a BG50. Other 50s are impressive, admirable rounds that deserve respect. However, a BG50 I feel should include, at the very least, the Grassmoor peaks included by the above runners.
If not, I fear the classic BG42 as it currently stands, will simply morph into a generalised circuit as popularity for extensions rises & more challenges are sought, potentially losing its unique appeal & magic.
