This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Based on previous discussions there seems to be a bit of dissagreement on this. Some start their tally from zero regardless of any hills having been ascended more than once, while others tally all of these and will often be starting a second round with a fairly useful head-start.
Not knowing any better, I always assumed my second round would start with a clean slate. But I must admit that having worked out that I've actually ascended a quarter of the 283 twice or more I'm tempted to revise my thinking!
What do you think and what rationale do most people go with?
Not knowing any better, I always assumed my second round would start with a clean slate. But I must admit that having worked out that I've actually ascended a quarter of the 283 twice or more I'm tempted to revise my thinking!
What do you think and what rationale do most people go with?
In reply to Jamie Bankhead: I've never thought about this before, but I would say that you would want to start with a clean sheet for a proper challenge, Are you able enough to do them all again is the question? Physically and mentally.
In reply to Jamie Bankhead: What sneaks above says.
In reply to Jamie Bankhead: i think it totally depends on the individual, personally id start afresh only counting 2nd ascents after the first round had been completed but lets be honest as none of it makes any sense at all it all really down to you.
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
There seems to be no one accepted practice on this, so it's up to you! Clean-slating seems rather perverse if, like you (and me), you have a significant number of second ascents by the time you compleat the first round, though.
There seems to be no one accepted practice on this, so it's up to you! Clean-slating seems rather perverse if, like you (and me), you have a significant number of second ascents by the time you compleat the first round, though.
In reply to Jamie Bankhead: You clearly need a greater challenge second time round. How about height order. Or alphabetically
In reply to MG: .....or Alphabetically, Reverse height order etc.?
In reply to sneaks:
In that case, I've already started my 45th round (Bidean and Ben Nevis)
> (In reply to Jamie Bankhead)
>
> I reckon every ascent constitutes a mark on a new list.
>
> I reckon every ascent constitutes a mark on a new list.
In that case, I've already started my 45th round (Bidean and Ben Nevis)
In reply to MG:
How about a round of Corbetts??
> (In reply to Jamie Bankhead) You clearly need a greater challenge second time round.
How about a round of Corbetts??
In reply to Jamie Bankhead: How about a winter climb up every one where that is possible? That would add some challenge. As an aside I wonder how many munros have no winter route at all, not even a grade I gully, I bet it's not that many
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
For me the "second round" question is just one more deliciously absurd dimension of the whole Munro business. It would seem particularly daft that Wee Jamie should be "required" to do Bidean and Nevis yet again for the sake of a new "round". But perhaps it's the terminology that's the key problem - a "second round" maybe does imply starting afresh, whereas if you just say you've done all the Munros twice that sensibly allows you to take credit - if you feel you need credit - for all the more interesting ones you've been up multiple times in between, when you couldn't be bothered going off specifically to tick the dreary dull ones (I know there aren't supposed to be any dull Munros, just dull people. Count me in ...).
For me the "second round" question is just one more deliciously absurd dimension of the whole Munro business. It would seem particularly daft that Wee Jamie should be "required" to do Bidean and Nevis yet again for the sake of a new "round". But perhaps it's the terminology that's the key problem - a "second round" maybe does imply starting afresh, whereas if you just say you've done all the Munros twice that sensibly allows you to take credit - if you feel you need credit - for all the more interesting ones you've been up multiple times in between, when you couldn't be bothered going off specifically to tick the dreary dull ones (I know there aren't supposed to be any dull Munros, just dull people. Count me in ...).
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
Its down to personal ethics.
Apparently the majority start again with a clean slate, including me.
Would you start a second round of golf before finishing the first?
Its down to personal ethics.
Apparently the majority start again with a clean slate, including me.
Would you start a second round of golf before finishing the first?
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
In my four rounds, I've counted old ones. So yes it makes it easier but all I claim is that I've climbed them all four times. If I'd had to start again, I'd have given up and years of pleasure would have been lost. My guess is that this is more common than starting again at zero.
In my four rounds, I've counted old ones. So yes it makes it easier but all I claim is that I've climbed them all four times. If I'd had to start again, I'd have given up and years of pleasure would have been lost. My guess is that this is more common than starting again at zero.
In reply to Andy Nisbet:
Dave Hewitt, who has done a lot of research into Munros/Munroists reckons the opposite. From a previous thread:-
" but from what I can tell anecdotally I’d say there are more wipe-the-slaters than there are accumulators."
See http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=460355&v=1#x6419412 (towards the end) for more.
> (In reply to Jamie Bankhead)
>
My guess is that this is more common than starting again at zero.>
Dave Hewitt, who has done a lot of research into Munros/Munroists reckons the opposite. From a previous thread:-
" but from what I can tell anecdotally I’d say there are more wipe-the-slaters than there are accumulators."
See http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=460355&v=1#x6419412 (towards the end) for more.
In reply to Grahame N:
The beauty of munro bagging is that it is absurd/pointless/nitpicky/challenging/inspiring all in equal measure. It is up to you there are no rules.
If it was me i would be wiping the slate clean but it won't be me as i will never stand atop Cairnwell again as long as I live.
If you have multiple lists on the go at any one time it also raises the thorny issue of how many times does one ascend Beinn Ghlas on a there and back to Lawers from the NTS car park? How may times do you ascend Conival on a there and back to Ben More Assynt?
The beauty of munro bagging is that it is absurd/pointless/nitpicky/challenging/inspiring all in equal measure. It is up to you there are no rules.
If it was me i would be wiping the slate clean but it won't be me as i will never stand atop Cairnwell again as long as I live.
If you have multiple lists on the go at any one time it also raises the thorny issue of how many times does one ascend Beinn Ghlas on a there and back to Lawers from the NTS car park? How may times do you ascend Conival on a there and back to Ben More Assynt?
In reply to nickyrannoch: Maybe the answer in the case of BMAssynt/Conival at least is don't re-do the there-and-back at all, try a different route...? Like the Glen Oykel horseshoe? Or coming in from the east instead (before it gets totally wrecked with windfarms)?
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
I won't be starting again from zero. At my current rate of progress, by the time I've done the remaining 30 or so on my first round, I'll have done over half on my second. I'd done about 150 by the time my partner started, and I've been mostly repeating these rather than doing new ones - sop she can catch up and we'll compleat together.
Having said that, my first "new challenge" will be to complete the tops (which I've been ticking after the event, but rarely bothering to check in advance where the tops are so often find I've missed one). And I've done fewer than 10% of the Corbetts so that's another long term task. Not to mention all the climbing still to be done.
I think I need to become a Buddhist so I can be reincarnated and have another 70 years
I won't be starting again from zero. At my current rate of progress, by the time I've done the remaining 30 or so on my first round, I'll have done over half on my second. I'd done about 150 by the time my partner started, and I've been mostly repeating these rather than doing new ones - sop she can catch up and we'll compleat together.
Having said that, my first "new challenge" will be to complete the tops (which I've been ticking after the event, but rarely bothering to check in advance where the tops are so often find I've missed one). And I've done fewer than 10% of the Corbetts so that's another long term task. Not to mention all the climbing still to be done.
I think I need to become a Buddhist so I can be reincarnated and have another 70 years
In reply to nickyrannoch:
None in my case, though I've been to that summit twice. A third ascent planned for this summer, but that'll be from Glen Lyon as part of a round of all the Lawers Munros.
Again, none. Both ascents I've continued down the south ridge
> how many times does one ascend Beinn Ghlas on a there and back to Lawers from the NTS car park?
None in my case, though I've been to that summit twice. A third ascent planned for this summer, but that'll be from Glen Lyon as part of a round of all the Lawers Munros.
> How many times do you ascend Conival on a there and back to Ben More Assynt?
Again, none. Both ascents I've continued down the south ridge
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
It is not really my thing, but I think if it was a second round would require a different route on each mountain rather than a clean slate.
It is not really my thing, but I think if it was a second round would require a different route on each mountain rather than a clean slate.
In reply to Toreador:
Indeed, but I would bet 75%+ of 'baggers' do the aforementioned routes. However, the point i was making is that its all bollocks (in the best possible way) and that it doesn't really matter, its up to yourself how you play the game.
Also, there can't be many finer days out in Scotland than the Lawers 7 starting from the Lairig Lochan and down to the hotel.
> (In reply to nickyrannoch)
> [...]
>
> None in my case, though I've been to that summit twice. A third ascent planned for this summer, but that'll be from Glen Lyon as part of a round of all the Lawers Munros.
>
> [...]
>
> Again, none. Both ascents I've continued down the south ridge
> [...]
>
> None in my case, though I've been to that summit twice. A third ascent planned for this summer, but that'll be from Glen Lyon as part of a round of all the Lawers Munros.
>
> [...]
>
> Again, none. Both ascents I've continued down the south ridge
Indeed, but I would bet 75%+ of 'baggers' do the aforementioned routes. However, the point i was making is that its all bollocks (in the best possible way) and that it doesn't really matter, its up to yourself how you play the game.
Also, there can't be many finer days out in Scotland than the Lawers 7 starting from the Lairig Lochan and down to the hotel.
In reply to Jamie Bankhead: Can't resist this even though I made my views known on the previous thread linked above.
I'm a wipe-the-slater.
I think there's a difference between having done all the Munros twice and having done two rounds. I don't think that you can start a second round until you've compleated a first.
It depends totally on what you want to do - is it climb every Munro twice or do another round after finishing your first? You could of course climb every Munro twice then continue on and ensure that you have done them all since your first round.
That could give you the opportunity of two celebrations - one when you've climbed them all twice and again when you compleat your second round.
And on that flash of inspiration I rest my case.
I'm a wipe-the-slater.
I think there's a difference between having done all the Munros twice and having done two rounds. I don't think that you can start a second round until you've compleated a first.
It depends totally on what you want to do - is it climb every Munro twice or do another round after finishing your first? You could of course climb every Munro twice then continue on and ensure that you have done them all since your first round.
That could give you the opportunity of two celebrations - one when you've climbed them all twice and again when you compleat your second round.
And on that flash of inspiration I rest my case.
In reply to Bob Aitken:
Agreed although I wonder if the difference is in attitude. Many folk just spend lots of time in the hills and after a few years realise they've actually done a lot of Munros and perhaps only then make a conscious effort to complete them. For them wiping the slate clean seems perverse; in spending a lot of time in the hills they just happen to have done all the munros once, twice or many times.
Others start hill walking with the main intention of doing all the munros and in that instance I can understand the attitude of wiping the slate clean.
> (In reply to Jamie Bankhead)
> For me the "second round" question is just one more deliciously absurd dimension of the whole Munro business. It would seem particularly daft that Wee Jamie should be "required" to do Bidean and Nevis yet again for the sake of a new "round". But perhaps it's the terminology that's the key problem - a "second round" maybe does imply starting afresh, whereas if you just say you've done all the Munros twice that sensibly allows you to take credit - if you feel you need credit - for all the more interesting ones you've been up multiple times in between, when you couldn't be bothered going off specifically to tick the dreary dull ones (I know there aren't supposed to be any dull Munros, just dull people. Count me in ...).
> For me the "second round" question is just one more deliciously absurd dimension of the whole Munro business. It would seem particularly daft that Wee Jamie should be "required" to do Bidean and Nevis yet again for the sake of a new "round". But perhaps it's the terminology that's the key problem - a "second round" maybe does imply starting afresh, whereas if you just say you've done all the Munros twice that sensibly allows you to take credit - if you feel you need credit - for all the more interesting ones you've been up multiple times in between, when you couldn't be bothered going off specifically to tick the dreary dull ones (I know there aren't supposed to be any dull Munros, just dull people. Count me in ...).
Agreed although I wonder if the difference is in attitude. Many folk just spend lots of time in the hills and after a few years realise they've actually done a lot of Munros and perhaps only then make a conscious effort to complete them. For them wiping the slate clean seems perverse; in spending a lot of time in the hills they just happen to have done all the munros once, twice or many times.
Others start hill walking with the main intention of doing all the munros and in that instance I can understand the attitude of wiping the slate clean.
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
As various people have said, there aren’t any hard-and-fast rules. I think a lot comes down to how “linear” one is in one’s bagging – and linearity does seem to be a more common approach than either semi-randomly taking what comes, or actively piling up repeat ascents. A considerable number of Munrobaggers get to the end of their round with relatively few repeats – sub-20 or even just single figures (and some seem to almost resent having done these, which is a bit weird). For such people, wiping the slate would appear to make perfect sense.
But when you get to a higher number of overall repeats – or, as in wee jamie’s instance, quite a high number of repeats of one or two particular hills – then slate-wiping can seem a bit silly. In terms of my own situation, I completed a round five years ago on my 1000th Munro – so I had 716 repeats stashed away that stage (although with no single big figure – the current total is 1330-odd with no Munro having been climbed more than 35 times). At the time of completion, I was pretty sure I was a confirmed accumulator rather than a wipe-the-slater, and I still am – but in the natural way of things I’ve thus far got to 140 in start-again terms, whereas Munros climbed at least twice whenever have nudged up from 181 at completion to 206 at present. I’m not actively pursuing a second round, but if I ever did then it’s likely that these two numbers would converge and I’d feel it made sense to complete both versions simultaneously.
My friend Ken Stewart finished a start-again second round two summers ago. Although his final few included several Munros that he’d been on more than once but not since his first completion, he made sure his actual second-completion hill was a “clean” one, ie one which he had been on only once, period. That struck me as a sensible approach – the alternative, of finishing round two (or whatever) on a hill that you hadn’t previously climbed during that round but had been on at least twice before, risks having it feel odd and artificial.
As various people have said, there aren’t any hard-and-fast rules. I think a lot comes down to how “linear” one is in one’s bagging – and linearity does seem to be a more common approach than either semi-randomly taking what comes, or actively piling up repeat ascents. A considerable number of Munrobaggers get to the end of their round with relatively few repeats – sub-20 or even just single figures (and some seem to almost resent having done these, which is a bit weird). For such people, wiping the slate would appear to make perfect sense.
But when you get to a higher number of overall repeats – or, as in wee jamie’s instance, quite a high number of repeats of one or two particular hills – then slate-wiping can seem a bit silly. In terms of my own situation, I completed a round five years ago on my 1000th Munro – so I had 716 repeats stashed away that stage (although with no single big figure – the current total is 1330-odd with no Munro having been climbed more than 35 times). At the time of completion, I was pretty sure I was a confirmed accumulator rather than a wipe-the-slater, and I still am – but in the natural way of things I’ve thus far got to 140 in start-again terms, whereas Munros climbed at least twice whenever have nudged up from 181 at completion to 206 at present. I’m not actively pursuing a second round, but if I ever did then it’s likely that these two numbers would converge and I’d feel it made sense to complete both versions simultaneously.
My friend Ken Stewart finished a start-again second round two summers ago. Although his final few included several Munros that he’d been on more than once but not since his first completion, he made sure his actual second-completion hill was a “clean” one, ie one which he had been on only once, period. That struck me as a sensible approach – the alternative, of finishing round two (or whatever) on a hill that you hadn’t previously climbed during that round but had been on at least twice before, risks having it feel odd and artificial.
In reply to Jamie Bankhead: Not having quite finished the first round yet, I have not thought too much about such things, but my thinking would be to have second round on going (and even 3rd, 4th etc ) with repeat ascents of hills (like Sneak said).
As an aside, I think if I were going for a second full round then I would personally be looking for ascents via a different route from the first time around if possible.
As an aside, I think if I were going for a second full round then I would personally be looking for ascents via a different route from the first time around if possible.
In reply to The New NickB:
yep i agree, i well on the way to completing my first set and will definetly ascend the 2nd set by a different route.
> (In reply to Jamie Bankhead)
>
> It is not really my thing, but I think if it was a second round would require a different route on each mountain rather than a clean slate.
>
> It is not really my thing, but I think if it was a second round would require a different route on each mountain rather than a clean slate.
yep i agree, i well on the way to completing my first set and will definetly ascend the 2nd set by a different route.
In reply to Sonya Mc:
I've climbed Ben Nevis 15 times, but still haven't completed my first round of Munros. Does that mean I would be telling the truth if I claimed to be on my 15th round of the Munros?
I've climbed Ben Nevis 15 times, but still haven't completed my first round of Munros. Does that mean I would be telling the truth if I claimed to be on my 15th round of the Munros?
In reply to Trangia:
An extreme case of this is Alan Douglas, whose ascent of Ben Lomond on 29 February this year was his 2578th. He’s completed one round of Munros – in 1985 – so depending which way you look at it he’s currently on either his second round or something close to his 2600th (he’ll have climbed Ben Lomond a few times during March, for sure).
Actually, his brother Ian is, in a way, more instructive in this. As of 29 Feb, whereas Alan had “only” climbed 4333 Munros total, Ian had climbed topside of 7300 (of which 2224 had been Ben Lomond). He has also completed one round (1986), but when I was chatting to him about all this kind of stuff a couple of years ago he said that if he went to Skye and climbed the In Pinn every day for a week, he would come home with eight rounds.
> I've climbed Ben Nevis 15 times, but still haven't completed my first round of Munros. Does that mean I would be telling the truth if I claimed to be on my 15th round of the Munros?
An extreme case of this is Alan Douglas, whose ascent of Ben Lomond on 29 February this year was his 2578th. He’s completed one round of Munros – in 1985 – so depending which way you look at it he’s currently on either his second round or something close to his 2600th (he’ll have climbed Ben Lomond a few times during March, for sure).
Actually, his brother Ian is, in a way, more instructive in this. As of 29 Feb, whereas Alan had “only” climbed 4333 Munros total, Ian had climbed topside of 7300 (of which 2224 had been Ben Lomond). He has also completed one round (1986), but when I was chatting to him about all this kind of stuff a couple of years ago he said that if he went to Skye and climbed the In Pinn every day for a week, he would come home with eight rounds.
In reply to Dave Hewitt:
You say he's climbed Ben Lomond 2578 times? That would take over 7 years if he did one ascent a day every day, including Xmas...
> (In reply to Trangia)
>
> [...]
>
> An extreme case of this is Alan Douglas, whose ascent of Ben Lomond on 29 February this year was his 2578th.
>
> [...]
>
> An extreme case of this is Alan Douglas, whose ascent of Ben Lomond on 29 February this year was his 2578th.
You say he's climbed Ben Lomond 2578 times? That would take over 7 years if he did one ascent a day every day, including Xmas...
In reply to Removed User:
Yep, amazing stuff.
http://caledonianmercury.com/2012/02/29/its-leap-year-day-a-critical-moment...
> You say he's climbed Ben Lomond 2578 times? That would take over 7 years if he did one ascent a day every day, including Xmas...
Yep, amazing stuff.
http://caledonianmercury.com/2012/02/29/its-leap-year-day-a-critical-moment...
In reply to Dave Hewitt:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
> [...]
>
> Yep, amazing stuff.
>
I bet he doesn't use a GPS?! > [...]
>
> Yep, amazing stuff.
>
In reply to Removed User:
There’s more repeat-ascending going on than people tend to realise – back to the idea that the default setting is very much the linear thing. Repeating seems to divide into three main types of people as far as I can tell:
(a) professional guides, eg on Skye with the In Pinn and also in days gone by on “tourist itinerary” hills – eg Tom Ward with 4000+ ascents of Snowdon in the 19th century;
(b) runners training on their local hill – eg Prasad Prasad making 100 ascents of Ben Ledi a couple of years ago;
and (c) locals who just like being out on familiar territory for uphill constitutionals and who can’t be bothered driving far – eg the Douglas brothers (although Ian lives in Glasgow so that’s still a bit of a drive) and also me on Ben Cleuch and various other people elsewhere that I can think of.
> (In reply to Removed UserDave Hewitt)
>
> Fair enough.
>
> Fair enough.
There’s more repeat-ascending going on than people tend to realise – back to the idea that the default setting is very much the linear thing. Repeating seems to divide into three main types of people as far as I can tell:
(a) professional guides, eg on Skye with the In Pinn and also in days gone by on “tourist itinerary” hills – eg Tom Ward with 4000+ ascents of Snowdon in the 19th century;
(b) runners training on their local hill – eg Prasad Prasad making 100 ascents of Ben Ledi a couple of years ago;
and (c) locals who just like being out on familiar territory for uphill constitutionals and who can’t be bothered driving far – eg the Douglas brothers (although Ian lives in Glasgow so that’s still a bit of a drive) and also me on Ben Cleuch and various other people elsewhere that I can think of.
In reply to Trangia:
No, you would still only be on your 15th round once you had completed ALL 14x. You could discount Ben Nevis once you started your 15th round (by that time you'd probably be on way more than 15 anyway
> (In reply to Sonya Mc)
>
> I've climbed Ben Nevis 15 times, but still haven't completed my first round of Munros. Does that mean I would be telling the truth if I claimed to be on my 15th round of the Munros?
>
> I've climbed Ben Nevis 15 times, but still haven't completed my first round of Munros. Does that mean I would be telling the truth if I claimed to be on my 15th round of the Munros?
No, you would still only be on your 15th round once you had completed ALL 14x. You could discount Ben Nevis once you started your 15th round (by that time you'd probably be on way more than 15 anyway
I am happy doing the one round. I am not actively seeking them out yet will do them when the situation arises. There are a lot of munros I would be happy to never go up again in my life.
I'm increasingly starting to think that it doesnt make a huge difference to my completion time. The hills that I've climbed twice or more have generally been because of their quality, local convenience or usefulness with clients. I'm pretty sure that those factors will lead me to climb most of them again, regardless of their inclusion in the total, before I get around all the more remote and awkward single ascents again.
So while it would be quite nice to be sitting on 71 and not 25, I think I'll go with wiping the slate.
So while it would be quite nice to be sitting on 71 and not 25, I think I'll go with wiping the slate.
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
I wiped the slate but as Dave Hewitt alludes to above, I didn't have much to wipe so no great loss. The SMC are happy whatever way you go. I try and go a different route when reascending Munros now but sometimes when you look into it there are reasons a particular route is well-trodden. Luckily some not-so-exciting hills have been better second time around.
I wiped the slate but as Dave Hewitt alludes to above, I didn't have much to wipe so no great loss. The SMC are happy whatever way you go. I try and go a different route when reascending Munros now but sometimes when you look into it there are reasons a particular route is well-trodden. Luckily some not-so-exciting hills have been better second time around.
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
In general those strongly pursuing a "round" tend to repeat less and are likely to favour slate-wiping.
Those loosely completing a round may repeat more and favour accumulating.
The fact a major proportion of folks wipe the slate reflects the fact that a lot of folks are concentrating on the round.
I'm not sure if Dave Hewitt has any data but I'd give you very short odds that there is a strong inverse relationship between number of repeats and proportion of slate-wiping.
In general those strongly pursuing a "round" tend to repeat less and are likely to favour slate-wiping.
Those loosely completing a round may repeat more and favour accumulating.
The fact a major proportion of folks wipe the slate reflects the fact that a lot of folks are concentrating on the round.
I'm not sure if Dave Hewitt has any data but I'd give you very short odds that there is a strong inverse relationship between number of repeats and proportion of slate-wiping.
In reply to kinley2:
Really just semi-anecdotal data acquired from discussing with people directly or noting what some of them say when writing to the SMC to confirm completion. But yes, the fewer repeats, the more slate-wiper-ish people do appear to be. It’s also interesting to look at the top end of things, those people known to have done a lot of rounds. I seem to recall that Steven Fallon (14 rounds) tends to not have many “spares” each round, and I think that’s more or less the case with Stewart Logan (ten rounds although none in the past 12 years) and Robin Howie (nine).
A few years ago I got overall Munro numbers from the top-end multi-round people – I’ll see if I can dig these out later (off out to play chess shortly, will try and have a look late-evening today or tomorrow). They’re in an old TAC somewhere – maybe someone else can find them meantime. Pretty sure however that the overall numbers for these people are well below the 6000+ and 7000+ totals for Richard Wood and Ian Douglas – each of whom has only done one round by any definition.
At some stage over the next year or two I’ll try and rustle up comparative stats for people doing rounds of Wainwrights, to see if there is a similar thing going on with such as Stephen Moore (35 rounds) and Alan Thompson (31) – although I suspect they’re both fairly “linear” given that they added four and three rounds respectively last year, which doesn’t allow much time for extra-curricular bagging.
> I'm not sure if Dave Hewitt has any data but I'd give you very short odds that there is a strong inverse relationship between number of repeats and proportion of slate-wiping.
Really just semi-anecdotal data acquired from discussing with people directly or noting what some of them say when writing to the SMC to confirm completion. But yes, the fewer repeats, the more slate-wiper-ish people do appear to be. It’s also interesting to look at the top end of things, those people known to have done a lot of rounds. I seem to recall that Steven Fallon (14 rounds) tends to not have many “spares” each round, and I think that’s more or less the case with Stewart Logan (ten rounds although none in the past 12 years) and Robin Howie (nine).
A few years ago I got overall Munro numbers from the top-end multi-round people – I’ll see if I can dig these out later (off out to play chess shortly, will try and have a look late-evening today or tomorrow). They’re in an old TAC somewhere – maybe someone else can find them meantime. Pretty sure however that the overall numbers for these people are well below the 6000+ and 7000+ totals for Richard Wood and Ian Douglas – each of whom has only done one round by any definition.
At some stage over the next year or two I’ll try and rustle up comparative stats for people doing rounds of Wainwrights, to see if there is a similar thing going on with such as Stephen Moore (35 rounds) and Alan Thompson (31) – although I suspect they’re both fairly “linear” given that they added four and three rounds respectively last year, which doesn’t allow much time for extra-curricular bagging.
In reply to Jamie Bankhead: good thread!never really thought about it-I think the best way is to do another round with a friend whos not done any or just a few-thats what im doing and its really satisfying.We did my last 30 or so together so I may do those when shes finished her round.100 up week after next- aiming for Lochnagar.
In reply to kinley2:
Have found those repeat-round stats I mentioned yesterday – they’re in TAC55, a decade ago.
http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tac/tac55/atthejun.htm
At that stage Steven Fallon had equalled Stewart Logan’s record of ten Munro rounds, and their overall tallies of Munros were 2883 (Fallon) and 2895 (Logan). The number of Munros in a round has varied over the years of course, but working on the basis that it’s roughly 280 each time, both men had averaged only around ten extra Munros each round – classic wipe-the-slate behaviour.
When I’m next in touch with Robin Howie I’ll ask if he knows his lifetime Munro tally. He’s working towards his tenth round, although this is going a bit slower than usual partly because he’s not as young as he was (although he’s still very spry) and partly because he’s doing subsidiary tops this time. My guess would be that his overall figure is a bit higher – quite possibly 3500 or so. In theory he starts again each time but I know that he’s allowed himself a bit of overlap with the last couple of rounds.
I’ll also ask Robert MacDonald at some stage – in Oct last year he finished his eighth round (six of which – all bar the first and third – have ended on the Etive Beinn Fhionnlaidh). Suspect he’s linear as well, as he lives in Lancs and doesn’t drive, so whenever he’s in the Highlands he’s pretty systematic.
Incidentally, another dichotomy-type aspect to all this is the question of how one calculates a lifetime Munro total. There are two basic methods. The first – which seems the more popular, although always strikes me as the more complicated and least “natural” – is to adjust the total whenever there are changes. Hence if someone had been along the Five Sisters half a dozen times pre-1997, their total would have risen by six (for Sgurr na Carnach) after that revision. Or if someone had climbed Beinn an Lochain a few times pre-1981, they would have lost them. Conversely, you can count hills according to their status at the time. This is the way I do it – hence I’ve been on An Stuc eight times overall but two were pre-1997, so I only count six An Stucs in my Munro total.
Have found those repeat-round stats I mentioned yesterday – they’re in TAC55, a decade ago.
http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tac/tac55/atthejun.htm
At that stage Steven Fallon had equalled Stewart Logan’s record of ten Munro rounds, and their overall tallies of Munros were 2883 (Fallon) and 2895 (Logan). The number of Munros in a round has varied over the years of course, but working on the basis that it’s roughly 280 each time, both men had averaged only around ten extra Munros each round – classic wipe-the-slate behaviour.
When I’m next in touch with Robin Howie I’ll ask if he knows his lifetime Munro tally. He’s working towards his tenth round, although this is going a bit slower than usual partly because he’s not as young as he was (although he’s still very spry) and partly because he’s doing subsidiary tops this time. My guess would be that his overall figure is a bit higher – quite possibly 3500 or so. In theory he starts again each time but I know that he’s allowed himself a bit of overlap with the last couple of rounds.
I’ll also ask Robert MacDonald at some stage – in Oct last year he finished his eighth round (six of which – all bar the first and third – have ended on the Etive Beinn Fhionnlaidh). Suspect he’s linear as well, as he lives in Lancs and doesn’t drive, so whenever he’s in the Highlands he’s pretty systematic.
Incidentally, another dichotomy-type aspect to all this is the question of how one calculates a lifetime Munro total. There are two basic methods. The first – which seems the more popular, although always strikes me as the more complicated and least “natural” – is to adjust the total whenever there are changes. Hence if someone had been along the Five Sisters half a dozen times pre-1997, their total would have risen by six (for Sgurr na Carnach) after that revision. Or if someone had climbed Beinn an Lochain a few times pre-1981, they would have lost them. Conversely, you can count hills according to their status at the time. This is the way I do it – hence I’ve been on An Stuc eight times overall but two were pre-1997, so I only count six An Stucs in my Munro total.
In reply to Jamie Bankhead: Clean slate for me, however, I have a self imposed (sentimental/neurotic) rule that will prevent problems with the count: all Munro's rounds must start with Ben Lomond and end with Schiehallion. Consequently I will never complete a second round until Schiehallion comes round again regardless of my dozens of days in Arrochar and Glen Coe.
To be honest I'm not exactly setting the world alight with my progress on round 2 but I reckon I've got another couple in me yet. I'm not desperate to collect "compleat" sets of other lists but I don't think I'd be able to resist if finishing the Munros came into view again.
To be honest I'm not exactly setting the world alight with my progress on round 2 but I reckon I've got another couple in me yet. I'm not desperate to collect "compleat" sets of other lists but I don't think I'd be able to resist if finishing the Munros came into view again.
In reply to Dave Hewitt:
Your method seems more natural, but could actually be harder to calculate: do promotions/demotions have a precise date attached to them?
> Incidentally, another dichotomy-type aspect to all this is the question of how one calculates a lifetime Munro total. There are two basic methods. The first – which seems the more popular, although always strikes me as the more complicated and least “natural” – is to adjust the total whenever there are changes. Hence if someone had been along the Five Sisters half a dozen times pre-1997, their total would have risen by six (for Sgurr na Carnach) after that revision. Or if someone had climbed Beinn an Lochain a few times pre-1981, they would have lost them. Conversely, you can count hills according to their status at the time. This is the way I do it – hence I’ve been on An Stuc eight times overall but two were pre-1997, so I only count six An Stucs in my Munro total.
Your method seems more natural, but could actually be harder to calculate: do promotions/demotions have a precise date attached to them?
In reply to Dave Hewitt: Oddly enough the day I was on Ben Fhionnlaidh in Etive someone was finsihing his round there ...I wonder if this was Robert Mac Donald who you mention?
In reply to Mark Bull:
You can calculate your "bagger quotient" by taking the number of ascents which count towards completed and current rounds (by whatever rule you choose), and dividing by your total ascents. So for me it would be 499/792 = 63%. I suspect that's on the low side of the average: it would be interesting to compare with other people's quotients!
You can calculate your "bagger quotient" by taking the number of ascents which count towards completed and current rounds (by whatever rule you choose), and dividing by your total ascents. So for me it would be 499/792 = 63%. I suspect that's on the low side of the average: it would be interesting to compare with other people's quotients!
In reply to andrew ogilvie:
The dates were 26/4/87, 25/12/92 (a rare Christmas Day completion – I only know of one other, again a repeat round), 1/11/95, 9/4/02, 2/8/07 and 28/10/11.
There’s a pic of him here, if that helps:
http://www.themunrosociety.com/PG11/album/slides/Robert%20MacDonald%20&...
He’s the smaller of the two men, on the left.
> (In reply to Dave Hewitt) Oddly enough the day I was on Ben Fhionnlaidh in Etive someone was finsihing his round there ...I wonder if this was Robert Mac Donald who you mention?
The dates were 26/4/87, 25/12/92 (a rare Christmas Day completion – I only know of one other, again a repeat round), 1/11/95, 9/4/02, 2/8/07 and 28/10/11.
There’s a pic of him here, if that helps:
http://www.themunrosociety.com/PG11/album/slides/Robert%20MacDonald%20&...
He’s the smaller of the two men, on the left.
In reply to Mark Bull:
That’s a good idea – hadn’t thought of that. Pretty sure 63% is very much on the low side. There are plenty of people who complete a round of Munros with no more than a dozen repeats, so in current figures that equates to 283/295, ie 96%.
Re my own stats, at completion I was 284/1000, but it’s nudged up a bit since then. I’ve added a further 334 to the main total, of which 140 have been new in second-round terms (including Sgurr nan Ceannaichean which was still a Munro when I reclimbed it). So that makes the current equation 424/1334 = 32%
> You can calculate your "bagger quotient" by taking the number of ascents which count towards completed and current rounds
That’s a good idea – hadn’t thought of that. Pretty sure 63% is very much on the low side. There are plenty of people who complete a round of Munros with no more than a dozen repeats, so in current figures that equates to 283/295, ie 96%.
Re my own stats, at completion I was 284/1000, but it’s nudged up a bit since then. I’ve added a further 334 to the main total, of which 140 have been new in second-round terms (including Sgurr nan Ceannaichean which was still a Munro when I reclimbed it). So that makes the current equation 424/1334 = 32%
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
I am in my 3rd year of having just one Munro to go.
(trying to get the family to commit to coming along)
In that time I have done many Munros that will NOT count to my second round, as my second 'round' will not start until I finish my first 'round'
I'm now on my first 'round' of Corbetts, I have done many of these Corbetts many times, but they will only count once (on this round) , and will NOT count towards any subsequent rounds.
I am in my 3rd year of having just one Munro to go.
(trying to get the family to commit to coming along)
In that time I have done many Munros that will NOT count to my second round, as my second 'round' will not start until I finish my first 'round'
I'm now on my first 'round' of Corbetts, I have done many of these Corbetts many times, but they will only count once (on this round) , and will NOT count towards any subsequent rounds.
In reply to Mark Bull:
It varies – the most recent one (Sgurr nan Ceannaichean) was precise, as it was announced at a press conference on 10 Sept 2009. Re other changes, it probably makes sense to go by the book publication date – eg the 1997 changes were in late summer (can’t recall exactly when offhand but it was around August I think). This can cause problems even with straightforward completions however – around the time of the 1997 changes I got a slightly anxious letter from a couple who were just about to set off and finish a round when they heard that there was suddenly an extra hill (one of the Coe ones) that they needed to do.
My own Munro career started shortly after the 1981 book came out, so I missed the complexities of the Feshie etc changes. But Beinn an Lochain was, as you suggest, difficult to nail down – it was confirmed in that edition of the book but had been known about (and probably mentioned in the SMC journal) before then. Similarly, the Beinn Teallach addition maybe didn’t have a precise date. Hamish Brown finished his seventh (and final) round there on 5 Jan 1985, so it must have been before then – probably not very long before, given that Hamish was party to the promotion process.
> Your method seems more natural, but could actually be harder to calculate: do promotions/demotions have a precise date attached to them?
It varies – the most recent one (Sgurr nan Ceannaichean) was precise, as it was announced at a press conference on 10 Sept 2009. Re other changes, it probably makes sense to go by the book publication date – eg the 1997 changes were in late summer (can’t recall exactly when offhand but it was around August I think). This can cause problems even with straightforward completions however – around the time of the 1997 changes I got a slightly anxious letter from a couple who were just about to set off and finish a round when they heard that there was suddenly an extra hill (one of the Coe ones) that they needed to do.
My own Munro career started shortly after the 1981 book came out, so I missed the complexities of the Feshie etc changes. But Beinn an Lochain was, as you suggest, difficult to nail down – it was confirmed in that edition of the book but had been known about (and probably mentioned in the SMC journal) before then. Similarly, the Beinn Teallach addition maybe didn’t have a precise date. Hamish Brown finished his seventh (and final) round there on 5 Jan 1985, so it must have been before then – probably not very long before, given that Hamish was party to the promotion process.
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
How about a round where you do each tick as a separate individual ascent from a low starting point. No ticks allowed for traverses from neighbouring summits.
How about a round where you do each tick as a separate individual ascent from a low starting point. No ticks allowed for traverses from neighbouring summits.
In reply to Chris Harris: From the nearest point at sea level? Anything else is just cheating.
In reply to Mark Bull:
I'm worse than I thought - 425/530 - only 80%
A bit more linear on the Corbetts at 89%. (
I'm not even going to admit to my Graham quotient.
> (In reply to Mark Bull)
>
> You can calculate your "bagger quotient" by taking the number of ascents which count towards completed and current rounds (by whatever rule you choose), and dividing by your total ascents. So for me it would be 499/792 = 63%. I suspect that's on the low side of the average: it would be interesting to compare with other people's quotients!
>
> You can calculate your "bagger quotient" by taking the number of ascents which count towards completed and current rounds (by whatever rule you choose), and dividing by your total ascents. So for me it would be 499/792 = 63%. I suspect that's on the low side of the average: it would be interesting to compare with other people's quotients!
I'm worse than I thought - 425/530 - only 80%
A bit more linear on the Corbetts at 89%. (
I'm not even going to admit to my Graham quotient.
In reply to kinley2:
Oh dear, I'm even worse than that...
Munros: 337/356 = 95%
Corbetts: 161/166 = 97%
Grahams: not counting so don't care.
All the remaining Corbetts are > 3 hours drive away so I expect I'll be doing quite a few repeats from now on.
Oh dear, I'm even worse than that...
Munros: 337/356 = 95%
Corbetts: 161/166 = 97%
Grahams: not counting so don't care.
All the remaining Corbetts are > 3 hours drive away so I expect I'll be doing quite a few repeats from now on.
In reply to Mark Bull:
On the basis that Ian Douglas with his 7300 Munros as of the end of Feb – but just one round – represents the extreme end of things, that provides a boundary to the known quotient spectrum. Ian has done them all again bar the In Pinn, so that makes roughly 285 (assuming he climbed Beinn an Lochain when it was still a Munro) plus 282 (the current list minus one), ie approximately 567/7300, which comes to 7.8%. So long as he keeps climbing Munros without going back to the In Pinn, that percentage will continue to creep downwards – it will dip below 7% if he gets to 8100 Munros overall. Of course if he did get a rush of blood and reclimb the In Pinn, it would start to rise again as any first ascents of Munros after that would count in the numerator part of the fraction.
I’d be interested to hear of any Munroist with a percentage lower than that – they wouldn’t necessarily need such a high overall total given that 284 (including lots of repeats) followed by a long sequence of same-Munro repeats would make it relatively easier. 285/4200 comes to 6.8%, for instance. Is pretty unlikely, though…
Incidentally, from what I can gather, Ian Douglas isn’t entirely sure his Munro total is the highest – he once mentioned having met someone (not Richard Wood, although they have met) who also had a very high figure. There are also people out there with unlisted multiple rounds, eg someone had done 11 rounds as of a couple of years ago.
At the other extreme, although the limit is 100%, it can and quite often does include more Munros than are in the current list. In TAC a while back there was discussion of the feasible maximum – eg say someone finished a round while it was still 284 (when Sgurr nan Ceannaichean was still in), but started way back so that they climbed Beinn an Lochain and the Feshie deletions as Munros. On that basis the “new Munro at the time” figure could get into the mid-290s.
> You can calculate your "bagger quotient" by taking the number of ascents which count towards completed and current rounds (by whatever rule you choose), and dividing by your total ascents.
On the basis that Ian Douglas with his 7300 Munros as of the end of Feb – but just one round – represents the extreme end of things, that provides a boundary to the known quotient spectrum. Ian has done them all again bar the In Pinn, so that makes roughly 285 (assuming he climbed Beinn an Lochain when it was still a Munro) plus 282 (the current list minus one), ie approximately 567/7300, which comes to 7.8%. So long as he keeps climbing Munros without going back to the In Pinn, that percentage will continue to creep downwards – it will dip below 7% if he gets to 8100 Munros overall. Of course if he did get a rush of blood and reclimb the In Pinn, it would start to rise again as any first ascents of Munros after that would count in the numerator part of the fraction.
I’d be interested to hear of any Munroist with a percentage lower than that – they wouldn’t necessarily need such a high overall total given that 284 (including lots of repeats) followed by a long sequence of same-Munro repeats would make it relatively easier. 285/4200 comes to 6.8%, for instance. Is pretty unlikely, though…
Incidentally, from what I can gather, Ian Douglas isn’t entirely sure his Munro total is the highest – he once mentioned having met someone (not Richard Wood, although they have met) who also had a very high figure. There are also people out there with unlisted multiple rounds, eg someone had done 11 rounds as of a couple of years ago.
At the other extreme, although the limit is 100%, it can and quite often does include more Munros than are in the current list. In TAC a while back there was discussion of the feasible maximum – eg say someone finished a round while it was still 284 (when Sgurr nan Ceannaichean was still in), but started way back so that they climbed Beinn an Lochain and the Feshie deletions as Munros. On that basis the “new Munro at the time” figure could get into the mid-290s.
In reply to Dave Hewitt: Thanks for your trouble Dave, in fact the chronology doesn't match my own ascent of this hill which must have been in '90 or '91 I think.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...