Sorry to buck the trend but not overly inpressed with this Fell Runner
Should it not be call the David Woodhead and pointless long distance challenges magazine, there is not much else in it, the results section is especially limited.
It looks nice but some editing please, less content would be fine if there was more about fell running in it. I realise content depends contributers but you don't need to publish everything you get.
If you didn't enjoy this edition, it's a good job you didn't read the last one!
The problem with these 'pointless long distance challenges' as you call them is that they're so long that it takes at least four pages to describe them. Stack a few of them together and you get the magazine half-full of them. Try writing four pages on the last time you ran Burnsall.
So don't stick em together then and then the magazine won't be half full, or write a long distance challenge magazine or even edit (got up had cereal for breakfast) or ration the pieces. This of course does not attract from the achievement of those concerned as this comment was meant to be about the content of the magazine not long distance challenges.
The Burnsall comment is puerile
Is someone really having a dig at magazine written by people who give up their time voluntarily to do it? We pay £12 or whatever for our subs, we get awesome magazine, a website, an association that represents fell runnning and so on.
Runners World costs a bit under £4, repeats content about how to run your best London, 10k, great north run every year zzzzzzzzzzz. So just think about the value for money we get!! If you didn't like the articles as much this time then get your best typing hat on and write in with something you do like and you think others might like too!!
And no I didn't write anything for fell runner, just think we should be glad that someone gives up their time to bring us the mag at all!!
You know what I always say: if you can't please all the people all the time,
**** 'em.