24hr challenges. A good thing?

[runningfool]

I got to wondering the other day about 24hr challenges. They clearly have a certain appeal for some folk but the aspect of a great days running somehow being "valueless" because one hasn't run a course in the required time bothers me.

Now I know I've used the words "valueless" and it's never spoken of that way but when you have elitest clubs that only allow membership to those succeeding within the time limit, it makes me wonder if it's all really in the true spirit of fell running.

What do others think, elitism or just a good healthy incentive to try harder?

(I should confess at this point that my aim in just over a week's time is to run the WHW in under 24hrs, though not for any sort of membership to a exclusive group, just for the satisfaction of completing it in a nice round number).

Tim

[Bob]

I wouldn't say that it (and by extension 24hr clubs) is elitist at all. But then being a member of one such supposed organisation, I would say that wouldn't I?

Isn't the clue in the name? I.e. a 24 hour challenge, if you accept the challenge but fail to complete it within the stipulated time frame then it's only a problem if you wished to have done so. Some attempt a 24hr challenge and get round in say 25hrs and are happy with that - they've had a good day (and a bit) but don't feel that they could better their effort so leave it at that. Others get the bug and try again (and again ...)

It's different from say, Olympic qualifying times. They are elitist because they are aiming to filter out those who aren't up to the mark so that the resulting competition isn't clogged up with fun runners.

No doubt there are quite a few runners who have done the Bob Graham but who haven't registered their attempt or wished to become a member of the BG club. It doesn't invalidate their achievements in any way. Obviously if someone starts claiming to have done so but hasn't become a member then it does raise doubts, there have been a couple of threads here along these lines. Is it any different from finishers of a race getting a chocolate bar and those who drop out for whatever reason don't?

If you are going to have a club with a name like "The Bob Graham 24 hour Club" and whose only entry requirement is to have done the BG or harder within 24 hours then they are not being duplicitous or even elitist. I think the bigger problem is that people (including myself) fixate on the BG when there are other similar challenges that get few attempts or challenges that you make up yourself.

In short, no run in the fells is "valueless", regardless of whether you succeed in the challenge.

[ydt]

....."(I should confess at this point that my aim in just over a week's time is to run the WHW in under 24hrs, though not for any sort of membership to a exclusive group, just for the satisfaction of completing it in a nice round number)".

Runningfool, I suggest that 30hrs is even more round a number than 24hrs!?

..."I think the bigger problem is that people (including myself) fixate on the BG when there are other similar challenges that get few attempts or challenges that you make up yourself".

Bob, in order to prevent people fixating on the BG and the other two major 24hr challenges I would suggest the most scenic of all the Cuillin round and the willd mid-Wales Meirionnydd round. Both have had reports in the Fellrunner.

Yiannis


Yiannis

[ChrisU]

The closed-loop, 24hr time-limit has pretty much been accepted as the benchmark for long British hill challenges - ie. BGR, PBR, RR and the various extended BGRs and 26+ Munro rounds at Glen Shiel and Glen Nevis.

The 24hr time limit does provide an interesting focus, but it would be a shame to think you've "failed" in some way if you complete one of these rounds over the limit.

Imposing a 24hr time limit, limits attempts at longer more challenging routes. There was a time back in the 80's when breaking the Pennine Way record was all the rage, but I don't think many folk are interested in those longer multi-day ultra challenges these days.

I am fascinated by the record for running the GR20 in Corsica. This is neither sub 24hr, nor a closed-loop. The current record is just under 37 hours. I find it incredible that anyone can keep going for 37 hours over that sort of terrain. I ran it in 31h45m last year, but that was spread over 5 days.

I'm sure there are longer more challenging routes available in the UK if people would stop thinking in terms of 24hr closed loops.

[RobW]

The PBR is an interesting example - my understanding is that Paddy never intended it to be a sub 24h challenge. It's just that most people take it that way.

The BGR is a perfectly good multi day backpack. It's all a matter of perspective.

GR20 - that one intrigues me too. I guess you'd do as much as possible of the rocky northern part in daylight. Do you have the stats, Chris? 5 days is impressive - was that self supported, hutting? We took 9; usual is 2 weeks of course.

[ChrisU]

Rob - there's a description of my 5-day jog along the GR20 here:
http://chrisupson.blogspot.com/2007/...n-5-jours.html

I'd previously done it twice before in 9 and 6 days carrying all my kit, including tent and stove.

The 5-day effort was supported as a French-organised challenge run.
Info here:
http://raidsnature.com/raidsnature/r...25725C003024CA

http://www.cap-orn.org/2007/06_GR20Resultats.htm

It wasn't cheap, but at least I didn't need to carry anything except a Raidlight bladder pack.

I think the stats are something like 180km, 12,000m+, but as you'll know, the trail is very rough and up and downy in places.

[Bob]

Yiannis,

At the moment, 24hrs is but a dream, I'm looking at fifteen minutes along a canal bank, could be a while before I get to do any hills

I know what you mean though, it's a sort of positive feedback - the BG is known, so people do the BG leading to it being better known. I did the BG because it was one of the things I wanted to do in the mountains from many, many years ago.

[Alan Lucker]

I got to wondering the other day about 24hr challenges. They clearly have a certain appeal for some folk but the aspect of a great days running somehow being "valueless" because one hasn't run a course in the required time bothers me.

Now I know I've used the words "valueless" and it's never spoken of that way but when you have elitest clubs that only allow membership to those succeeding within the time limit, it makes me wonder if it's all really in the true spirit of fell running.

What do others think, elitism or just a good healthy incentive to try harder?

(I should confess at this point that my aim in just over a week's time is to run the WHW in under 24hrs, though not for any sort of membership to a exclusive group, just for the satisfaction of completing it in a nice round number).

Tim

Most things that are challenging are healthy. Especially if it is generally recognised as being difficult. These 24 hour rounds are not exclusive to fell running or fell runners, they are challenges to anyone who wishes to take them on. Similar to Yiannis I suggest 20 hours to be a nice round number, and if I did it again (the whw) I would aim for this, hence challenging myself again, as well as enjoying the experience. Success or failure is down to your own preconceived expectations of yourself.
I think your initial question is more valid as one aimed at the physical aspect of these challenges. They do take a lot out of you, and probably weaken you to infection for 2 or 3 weeks afterwards. Not to mention strains and sprains.
But my personal wiew is yes they are a good thing.

[RobW]

Rob - there's a description of my 5-day jog along the GR20 here:
http://chrisupson.blogspot.com/2007/...n-5-jours.html

....

I think the stats are something like 180km, 12,000m+, but as you'll know, the trail is very rough and up and downy in places.

Evidently a nice opportunity for doing the route without having to carry kit - well done for spotting it - and for winning!

[runningfool]

Hi guys, thanks for all your feedback. I must admit that FITC and Richard Askwith's quest *did* inspire me and on those grounds, 24 hr challenges are a good thing. I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the idea of a "club" that only admits people based on achievement.

I'm much more familiar with the West Highland Way "family", an informal association of folk who are training for the WHW. Whether you succeed in 24hrs or DNF, it doesn't matter, you can still get "sucked into" the family and benefit from the company and experience of other WHWers.

Anyway, the world would be a dull place if we all did things the same way. Thanks again for your views.