Podcast about the Round

[Martyn P]

I am beginning to think I am someone who enjoys to run on the fells, trails, paths and sheep tracks (be they flat or steep). BUT not a fell runner as that would seem to be something else instead, and this forum does not match many of the friendly fell runners I speak to when training on the fells in Northumberland and North Yorkshire.

I don't know what would make you think that, some of the friendliest people I've ever met are on this forum. If you're going to suggest people are being elitist over something that they're (in my limited experience) quite modest about, that could be viewed as a bit antagonistic. Anyhow, I don't want to come across as hostile or anything like that, so sorry if I did.

[Tahr]

I am beginning to think I am someone who enjoys to run on the fells, trails, paths and sheep tracks (be they flat or steep). BUT not a fell runner as that would seem to be something else instead, and this forum does not match many of the friendly fell runners I speak to when training on the fells in Northumberland and North Yorkshire.

Nothing to do with being a Felll runner, it is the inter-net/forum's in general, everybody I have met off here have been great. I would help if I can but not done the BG yet.

ATB

Tahr

[monkeyx]

Martyn, I found your comments supportive

[No map, no compass]

Nice idea, but you guys need an editor. Have a look at the length of other podcasts and programmes on Radio 4. Anything more than 30 minutes is excessive, an hour if you have something really interesting to talk about with lots of information (not waffle or rambling blather). Not even your Gran will listen to three and a half hours! You may have some really interesting stuff in your podcast, but I lost the will to live after 9 minutes, so will never find out. I realise this sounds nasty, but it is actually constructive criticism.

[monkeyx]

No map cheers for the feedback. If it was up to me it would have been 2 episodes. But we are committee of three A lot of running podcasts are often well over an hour and some do run to 2 hours. This will be our normal episode length. it is not a general running podcast aimed at a typical BBC audience

There was a lot to introduce in episode 1 and the main point of our podcast is to allow "normal" ability runners to share their views on runs they love. The fact that we are a grass roots level podcast seems to have been well appreciated and our download figures are beyond what I dreamed of for our first episode. If you only listen to one part of the podcast, then the interview with Jon Steele is excellent.

I think over time and feedback we will try and strike a balance between trail, ultra and fell running. I certainly know that the July episode is going to feature my number 1 race/event. The Chevy Chase We are also hoping to include a fell specialist on BGR episode.

[No map, no compass]

The trouble with audio is that you can't find different sections within a magazine podcast easily. I would suggest that each topic should be a separate podcast, then listeners can hear what they want to hear. It will also have the advantage for you that people are likely to listen to more of your content, as they won't get bored or frustrated by having to attempt to skip through bits they aren't interested in to find what they like and so just switch off. Just because someone has downloaded a podcast does not mean they have listened to all of it.

Just because other podcasts are long doesn't mean that that is a sensible length. Do you or anyone else really listen to the whole of a 2 hour podcast? Do you really have that much of interest to say? That is a heck of a long time, its the same length as most presenter slots on professional radio channels, and they have music filling much of that.

Ho hum, its your podcast...

[DrPatrickBarry]

Martyn, I found your comments supportive

Don't take it personally part of the issue here is people want to keep the BG a secret and with very good reasons for thinking that. So they are not that keen on seeing something like this go ahead.

[monkeyx]

It has indeed weighed heavily on my thoughts about the issue of BGR not being a publicised event.

I am certain that our podcast will not gain as much publicity as "Feet in the Clouds" or as a BBC 4 production on the round aimed at non runners.

99% of the people that listen to the podcast are trail/ultra/fell runners. So they will already have heard of the BGR.

There has been some talk in Ultra Running circles of high profile runners (sponsored) attempting the round. I hope this never happens. For me the round is for every day folk that run trails/fells as a hobby, our podcast is aimed very much at them.

[Daletownrunner]

Don't take it personally part of the issue here is people want to keep the BG a secret and with very good reasons for thinking that. So they are not that keen on seeing something like this go ahead.

So we're unlikely to see the fastest gingerbread man/ baby/ fire extinguisher etc etc for the BGR in the near future I take it

[MorganW]

The Bob Graham will continue to receive attention, not least as a result of the revised edition of Feet in the Clouds just published.

The Bob Graham Club has continuing concerns about the spike in the number of attempts which has, some would say almost wholly, resulted from the publication of the book back in 2004.

The BG Club has broadly adopted a similar stance to the FRA (aptly summarised in the piece by Graham Breeze in the Spring 2012 edition of The Fellrunner entitled "The FRA and the Media") in connection with a whole range of approaches to co-operate or collaborate with media organisations or the like.

I have had a perfectly reasonable exchange with the publishers of FITC confirming that the BG Club would not wish to participate in any activities to market the revised edition of the book. The publishers quite understand the Club's position.

Interestingly, Richard has penned a new Epilogue to the revised edition which wrestles with the forces that some suggest the book has unleashed. It makes interesting reading. (I'll openly confess here that the publishers mailed me a copy I haven't paid for.)

He wrestles the issues up hill and down dale but his concluding words are worth quoting in full:

"The challenge - and duty - for the older generation is to pass on its values to the new. The challenge for the incomers is to listen. To readers who feel drawn to try fell running for themselves, my message is simple: you are welcome and my best wishes go with you into the mountains. But remember: this is a different world you are entering: precious, unique and vulnerable. Please treat it, and the fells, and the people who run on them, and the people who make it possible for them to do so, with the care and honour they deserve."

I'm not one for pointing the finger just at "incomers" as Richard calls them.

The challenge for everyone who has been, is or wants to be involved in the Bob Graham story is to think much, much harder about the impact their own involvement has.

Numbers are becoming an issue. Foot traffic is increasing. Parts of the route are coming under scrutiny from the National Park Authority and Natural England. No formal discussions or action yet, but clearly a watching brief.

A great first step for me would be a reduction in pacer numbers on attempts to reduce the footfall. I'm well aware of the burning desire that we all have to help those we know, or even don't know, succeed in their attempts. At the risk of being called an old fart at the age of 49, in my day it was 2 pacers to a leg. We didn't feel the need for any more. you don't need a bus-load; you do need two good, competent mountain folk.

My key concern is trying to ensure that this great challenge remains available as a test for future generations. It is all about balance, and I don't believe things are in balance during the current period. More "care and honour" required.