UKC

/ NEWS: Nicky Spinks Runs Double Ramsay Round

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
UKC/UKH News - on 02 Jul 2018
Nicky on a reccy of the round, 4 kbNicky Spinks has completed a double Ramsay Round with a time of 55:56:38. The Ramsay is a classic 24-hour challenge which begins in Glen Nevis and takes in 58 miles and 28,000ft of ascent. Nicky is the first person to complete two consecutive rounds.

Read more
J Brown - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I was running in my local hills in Central Scotland over the weekend, and it was scorching.

I can't get my head around the extraordinary commitment and effort that Nicky Spinks has shown over the weekend - it's just absolutely incredible.

Congratulations!

MischaHY - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

An incredible effort - I found Run Forever hugely inspiring and it's fantastic to see Nicky pushing the boundaries even further. Massive respect. 

tingle - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Absolutely unbelievable effort, i would rather run in torrential rain than the weather we have been having.

Robert Durran - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

How long are you allowed to take on a double <24 hour challenge> for it to count as a success?

 

Andy Hardy on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

I'd say about 56 hours.

Robert Durran - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> I'd say about 56 hours.

So however long it happens to take then?

 

mountain.martin - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

Come on Robert, Nicky has just completed one of the most impressive feats of distance fell running in Britain and you want to quibble?

Obviously the challenge is still there to do it in 48hrs, but I imagine that wasn't possible (by any human) in the heat this weekend.

Even more kudos to her for finishing when she knew she wasn't going to make her original target.

Post edited at 11:19
Andy Hardy on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes. She has run the route twice. If you think you can do it faster, knock yourself out.

Robert Durran - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to mountain.martin:

> Come on Robert, Nicky has just completed one of the most impressive feats of distance fell running in Britain

I know she has. It's boggling - I'm very impressed. But if someone ran a mile in 3.31 it would be extremely impressive, but no one would call it the first three and a half minute mile. Why is this different? 

> .......and you want to quibble?

I'm not quibbling. I'm just asking a perfectly reasonable question. If I had done it in a week or so last year, would that have counted as the first double Ramsay Round? If not, what time would have counted? Or is it about not sleeping or something? Or is the problem calling it a "24 hour challenge" - do people "count" a 25 hour Ramsay Round. As far as I am aware you don't join the BG "club" if you take more than 24 hrs.

 

Post edited at 11:14
BedRock - on 02 Jul 2018

> Come on Robert, Nicky has just completed one of the most impressive feats of distance fell running in Britain

It is impressive, I couldn't do it but don't really get the significance (or the point of running around twice) of a "double". I could be the first person to run the London marathon twice. seems pointless, but if that is what she enjoys doing and sees it as worthwhile I wont stop her. For me it just seems pointless.

But well done Nicky on the run and the money raised.

mountain.martin - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I'm not quibbling. I'm just asking a perfectly reasonable question. If I had done it in a week or so last year, would that have counted as the first double Ramsay Round? If not, what time would have counted? Or is it about not sleeping or something? Or is the problem calling it a "24 hour challenge" - do people "count" a 25 hour Ramsay Round. As far as I am aware you don't join the BG "club" if you take more than 24 hrs.

Fair points, but massive congratulations seem in order before asking those questions.

Seeing as no one has done a double before I guess you can call it what you like as long as you are honest, the same as climbers do with first ascents. Similarly, the challenge is there to improve the style/time.

Simon Caldwell - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> If I had done it in a week or so last year, would that have counted as the first double Ramsay Round?

Yes

Robert Durran - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> > If I had done it in a week or so last year, would that have counted as the first double Ramsay Round?

> Yes

And if I did a single round in, say, 4 days, would that count as a Ramsay Round? Is the 24 hour thing relevant at all? And, if not, would it not be a bit odd when (I think I'm right in saying) these rounds were first done with the aim of doing as many tops as possible in 24 hours? 

Robert Durran - on 02 Jul 2018

I suppose what I am asking is whether this is ultimately going to be seen by the hill running community (and indeed by Nicky herself) as an impressive but failed attempt or as the first true double Ramsay Round?

 

Wizzy - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

This conversation is detracting from what is an incredible feet of fitness, endurance and mental toughness.

Amazing and inspiring in equal measure, well done Nicky!!

Robert Durran - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to Wizzy:

> This conversation is detracting from what is an incredible feet of fitness, endurance and mental toughness.

There is room for both well deserved admiration and interesting discussion here. I don't think anything is being detracted from.

 

Post edited at 13:05
Simon Caldwell - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

It depends on whether you're after "official" recognition. If you were then you'd have failed, but either way nobody would be even slightly interested as it's easy and probably quite common.

So if Nicky were after "official" recognition of a double Ramsay then she's failed, if she wanted to do the route in the shortest time possible then she's succeeded and set a very hard benchmark for others to try to match.

Robert Durran - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> So if Nicky were after "official" recognition of a double Ramsay then she's failed.

In which case it is maybe a bit dodgy for an "official" news item here to announce the first double round.

> If she wanted to do the route in the shortest time possible then she's succeeded and set a very hard benchmark for others to try to match.

The news item does say her aim was 48 hrs, so she unarguably failed to achieve that aim. Of course she presumably had the secondary aim of completing it as fast as possible if she didn't make the 48hrs.

 

Post edited at 14:23
petestack - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I suppose what I am asking is whether this is ultimately going to be seen by the hill running community (and indeed by Nicky herself) as an impressive but failed attempt or as the first true double Ramsay Round?

Neither. Since Charlie was recording it as a double round with a variation (two big out-and-backs rather than two full loops albeit covering exactly the same ground), it was arguably never going to be the latter anyway. It is what it is, and a mind-blowing feat whatever you call it!

Post edited at 14:39
Robert Durran - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to petestack:

> Neither. Since Charlie was recording it as a double round with a variation (two big out-and-backs rather than two full loops albeit covering exactly the same ground), it was arguably never going to be the latter anyway. It is what it is, and a mindblowing feat whatever you call it!

Why did she opt for the two out and backs rather than two complete loops?

Nobody is arguing that it isn't what it is and that it isn't mind-blowing! (Just as Caldwell's and Honnold's Nose record prior to going under two hours was mindblowing)

Post edited at 14:53
Strachan on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to BedRock:

"For me it just seems pointless.

But well done Nicky on [...] the money raised."

 

Surely that's at least one point?

 

Post edited at 16:23
petestack - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Why did she opt for the two out and backs rather than two complete loops?

Logistics, she says. I'm thinking where and when she wanted static support points, but wonder whether there's also a bit of a mind game in avoiding straight comparison of first and second rounds. Though this could also be done by running one in each direction, which I'm sure would keep Charlie happy re. two complete rounds.

elliptic on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Why did she opt for the two out and backs rather than two complete loops?

As Pete said it makes the support logistics easier by doing the really remote section round the back of Loch Treig twice in succession instead of 24 hours apart. She did the same thing on the BGR so the support team only had to drive round to Wasdale once.

Also psychologically slightly easier I'd imagine with two turnaround points to aim at instead of just one.

Post edited at 17:08
routrax - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to BedRock:

> It is impressive, I couldn't do it but don't really get the significance (or the point of running around twice) of a "double". I could be the first person to run the London marathon twice. seems pointless, but if that is what she enjoys doing and sees it as worthwhile I wont stop her. For me it just seems pointless.

Yeah pointless, unlike climbing, which has a definite point to it, unless you're doing a route twice, then it's totally pointless. ????

Edit: should have been a rolling eye emoji instead of question marks...

Post edited at 17:25
Jamming Dodger on 02 Jul 2018

That’s simply bonkers. I could never do even one BGR. I can’t believe some mean spirited folks are pulling that effort apart. 

Well done her!

(Typing this from the comfort of my sofa) 

Dave Hewitt - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Reading the thread it feels like Robert's getting flak for having asked what seems to be a fair question. He's acknowledged the amazingness of what Nicky Spinks achieved, and I'm similarly amazed by it - a single CRR is an astonishing feat and a double circuit is more than doubly astonishing. But the 24hr component always seems to have been there, so it does seem reasonable (to me at least) to ask if getting round outside 48hr counts in terms of it being an actual double CRR.

Years ago I interviewed Charlie about his round (the 40th anniversary of which falls next week), and he told of having been fairly comfortably inside the 24hr target time when he stopped for a break on the Aonachs, but he then made a navigational mess of descending towards CMD (set off down the wrong ridge) and suddenly all the spare time had gone and it all became a bit frantic. He pushed hard however - goodness knows where he found the extra energy - and reached the top of the Ben with, as I recall, 33 mins to go. He got down to the hostel in 31 mins and the thing was done. From what he said, it seemed pretty clear that had he not managed to duck under the 24hr mark then he'd have in some way felt the job hadn't been done. I don't know how strictly he applies that rule these days, but certainly in the early days it seems that a CRR needed to be inside 24hr, so it perhaps follows that a double one should strictly speaking be inside 48hr. Nicky's route complicates assessments somewhat in that it's not possible to say that she got round the first lap inside 24hr and then fell away, given that there were doubling-backs (which seem absolutely fair enough to me, both in logistical and psychological terms as has been noted) rather than actual laps.

Two other thoughts. The original idea involved, neatly, 24 Munros in 24 hours. This has been undermined by Sgor an Iubhair having been demoted from full Munro status in the 1997 SMC revision, since when the route has "only" had 23 Munros. Hence a double CRR attempt would only be 46 Munros rather than the 48 in 48hrs faced by anyone attempting it pre-1997. Maybe that doesn't much matter, but it does tend to indicate that hills and hours elapsed are both important components in a successful round. (Incidentally, do all CRR people still go over Sgor an Iubhair? Pete, you presumably know more about this than anyone here. From memory there's a contouring option on the south flank used by Munrobaggers who don't want to do any extra ascent.)

The other thought is that there's perhaps a comparison to be drawn with the LDWA 100-milers, where there's a 48hr cutoff. I'm not entirely sure (and I've never attempted a 100-miler), but having read lots of issues of Strider over the years I think that if someone crossed the finish line in 48.01 then they would be deemed to have not quite managed it - and wouldn't get a certificate or be counted in the overall total of finishers. Different game, different rules of course, but there are similarities. (Pete - has anyone ever just missed the 24hr mark for a single CRR, say finishing in 24.03, and if so how is such a round regarded in the listings?)

Anyway, all that said, what Nicky managed the other day - especially in that heat - was astonishing. It'll be interesting to see if she tries again, perhaps next year and in more amenable conditions. It'd be great if she could eventually become the first person to get round twice inside 48hr, but even if she never gives it another go then what she's managed thus far (as with her double BGR etc) is remarkable.

petestack - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to Dave Hewitt:

> Reading the thread it feels like Robert's getting flak for having asked what seems to be a fair question. He's acknowledged the amazingness of what Nicky Spinks achieved, and I'm similarly amazed by it - a single CRR is an astonishing feat and a double circuit is more than doubly astonishing. But the 24hr component always seems to have been there, so it does seem reasonable (to me at least) to ask if getting round outside 48hr counts in terms of it being an actual double CRR.

Yes, I agree. But, while a sub-48 double probably remains the gold standard (or would if anyone else had thought of it), we have parallels in the recognition* of the earlier > 24-hour winter attempts.

*On Charlie's site, but not on his finishers' list.

> I don't know how strictly he applies that rule these days, but certainly in the early days it seems that a CRR needed to be inside 24hr

It still does. The Paddy Buckley's the only big round that doesn't require it, though even there it's what people want.

> so it perhaps follows that a double one should strictly speaking be inside 48hr.

Yes, agreed again. Though perhaps we're being picky when most athletic events more than double time with doubled distance?

> Nicky's route complicates assessments somewhat in that it's not possible to say that she got round the first lap inside 24hr and then fell away

Which raises the question should a 'true' double comprise two straight rounds *both* sub-24? I don't think so when, for example, a 21:59 and a 26:00 seems every bit as valid as two 23:59s, but who knows?

> Two other thoughts. The original idea involved, neatly, 24 Munros in 24 hours.

So I thought once, but Sgor an Iubhair was only a full Munro from 1981 (after Charlie's original round) till 1997.

> (Incidentally, do all CRR people still go over Sgor an Iubhair? Pete, you presumably know more about this than anyone here. From memory there's a contouring option on the south flank used by Munrobaggers who don't want to do any extra ascent.)

Not sure about the 'know more about this' but, yes, it's still a required peak. I asked Charlie once (not for me because I'd never skip it, but in case it cropped up for the SHR pages).

> (Pete - has anyone ever just missed the 24hr mark for a single CRR, say finishing in 24.03, and if so how is such a round regarded in the listings?)

People have missed narrowly. Not sure if that narrowly, but it's got to be sub-24 for Charlie to include it in the main list. He still features some > 24s on the site, but for other interest (e.g. Rhonda Claridge's round and the Canadian TV attempt, both of which I was on).

> Anyway, all that said, what Nicky managed the other day - especially in that heat - was astonishing.

This above all else!

 

Post edited at 19:11
petestack - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to Dave Hewitt:

> Nicky's route complicates assessments somewhat in that it's not possible to say that she got round the first lap inside 24hr and then fell away, given that there were doubling-backs (which seem absolutely fair enough to me, both in logistical and psychological terms as has been noted) rather than actual laps.

Interesting to note that Nicky wouldn't have been credited with another Ramsay's Round on Charlie's main list regardless because her out-and-backs ruled out either one or two verifiable sub-24 rounds in a sub-48.

Dave Hewitt - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to petestack:

Ta for the thoughts - interesting stuff.

> So I thought once, but Sgor an Iubhair was only a full Munro from 1981 (after Charlie's original round) till 1997.

Right enough - that was silly of me. I'm supposed to know about Munro changes and the like, and I knew that Sgor an Iubhair was only in the main list for those 16 years, but forgot that its entry post-dated Charlie's round. It's curious therefore that his site talks of his having climbed 24 in 24 and the accompanying map includes Sgor an Iubhair along with the other 23 Munros:

http://www.ramsaysround.com/

when only the 16 listed finishers after Charlie himself actually did all those 24 summits as Munros:

http://www.ramsaysround.com/finishers/

I suppose it's mainly that Charlie did his round in the pre-internet days and by the time the website came along it was by then 24 Munros (assuming the website appeared pre-autumn 1997).

> Which raises the question should a 'true' double comprise two straight rounds *both* sub-24? I don't think so when, for example, a 21:59 and a 26:00 seems every bit as valid as two 23:59s, but who knows?

Either way seems fine to me, given that the 48hr target would be the primary one and everything else would be components. I'm a either-way person generally on these sort of things, mind you - eg it seems fine to do a second round of Munros either starting again by wiping the slate clean or going on an overall cumulative basis. (Incidentally, in that example, slate-cleaners are often adamant that theirs is the only proper way while cumulative types tend to be much more amenable to both approaches.)

 

 

Post edited at 19:59
Robert Durran - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to Dave Hewitt:

> Reading the thread it feels like Robert's getting flak for having asked what seems to be a fair question.

And thanks to those who have taken the time to give informative and sensible answers rather than just hitting the dislike button. An interesting discussion in the end - which is what a forum such as this should be about.

Robert Durran - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to Dave Hewitt:

> It seems fine to do a second round of Munros either starting again by wiping the slate clean or going on an overall cumulative basis. (Incidentally, in that example, slate-cleaners are often adamant that theirs is the only proper way while cumulative types tend to be much more amenable to both approaches.)

Or rather cumulative types (such as myself) just think that if slate cleaners want to be that daft then they are welcome to it!

 

Post edited at 23:46
petestack - on 03 Jul 2018
In reply to Dave Hewitt:

> It's curious therefore that his site talks of his having climbed 24 in 24 and the accompanying map includes Sgor an Iubhair along with the other 23 Munros:

That's because it's a required peak. Though why it should be when you can choose to bypass other Mamores and Grey Corries tops is another matter... and why like you I'd thought it a legacy of the 24 in 24 concept. Stob Coire Easain (Grey Corries version, not the Munro) and Sgurr Choinnich Beag are usually bypassed as I did on my round, though I don't find it aesthetic to do so, whereas most of the others are probably quicker to go over. There's an option to avoid Stob Choire a' Mhail and the Devil's Ridge in one direction between Stob Ban and Sgurr a' Mhaim (or vice versa), but I prefer to take the crest both ways. Likewise the Na Gruagaichean NW Top bypass, which I found slower than taking the path over the top. But so long as you start at the hostel, take the right peaks (23 Munros + Sgor an Iubhair) in the right order and return to the hostel less than 24 hours later all on foot, it's a Ramsay Round.

> I suppose it's mainly that Charlie did his round in the pre-internet days and by the time the website came along it was by then 24 Munros (assuming the website appeared pre-autumn 1997).

Charlie started the site in 2006.

Post edited at 00:29
BedRock - on 03 Jul 2018
In reply to routrax:

not really - Masters wall has just been climbed my James MaCaffie - is the next level up a "double Masters wall" - it could be.

Nicky's round would have made more sense had she gone round clockwise and then anticlockwise, that is a double "round" otherwise to me she's gone on a very long run with a hell of a lot of height gain in over 48hours. A tremendous physical feat but to me its being over hyped by her sponsors. In my opinion she's completed 46 munros in 55 hours, and not a double Ramsay round, but that is my opinion. Horses for courses.

Robert Durran - on 03 Jul 2018
In reply to BedRock:

> not really - Masters wall has just been climbed my James MaCaffie - is the next level up a "double Masters wall" - it could be.

No. I think climbing comparisons are a bit silly. Climbing achievement has always primarily been measured in difficulty of a single route, whereas running achievement has always primarily been measured in speed over a distance. 

Speed climbing and climbing enchainements have always, therefore, seemed to me just a sideshow, whereas something like a double Ramsay round in under 48 hours (or just in a record time) is what running is all about.

 

Dave Hewitt - on 03 Jul 2018
In reply to petestack:

> There's an option to avoid Stob Choire a' Mhail and the Devil's Ridge in one direction between Stob Ban and Sgurr a' Mhaim (or vice versa)

There's also a useful spring close to the Jacob's Ladder path on the western bypass option between the Devil's Ridge and the Iubhair/Ban col - a handy thing in conditions such as these.

Incidentally, there are two known instances of people having completed a round of Munros on Sgor an Iubhair during the 16 years when such a thing was possible: Jack Ashcroft (no.644 in the list) finished there on 4 June 1989, as did Andrew Lazenby (3113) on 17 September 1994.

 

 

Robert Durran - on 03 Jul 2018
In reply to Dave Hewitt:

> Incidentally, there are two known instances of people having completed a round of Munros on Sgor an Iubhair during the 16 years when such a thing was possible.

I presume they had previously bypassed it when it wasn't a Munro.

Dave Hewitt - on 03 Jul 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I presume they had previously bypassed it when it wasn't a Munro.

I don't think so - from memory (and from having seen their letters) I can't recall any suggestion that they were "topping up", ie adding new Munros to existing rounds. They would just have been normal finishes - the Lazenby one came after Sgor an Iubhair had been a Munro for well over a decade, after all. It only seems odd because the hill was then chalked off again, so any completions on it look somewhat isolated in retrospect. There have been other finishes on subsequently deleted Munros, eg at least three on Beinn an Lochain and a whopping 29 on the Fisherfield one that got the chop relatively recently (although none at all on Sgurr nan Ceannaichean next to Moruisg which went at roughly the same time). There were also two finishes on Carn Cloich-mhuilinn - Munro's own intended last hill but not now in the main list. Perhaps the most unusual example of this kind of thing was by Bob Leitch of the Grampian Club who finished a round on Geal Charn on 6 August 1977 - the only known instance of anyone having completed on the trio of Feshie Munros that got demoted in 1981.

To bring it back to the main subject (sorry for the sidetrack), it'd be neat if someone had finished a round of Munros during a CRR, but as far as I'm aware that's never happened - not least I suppose because people tend to recce the route so any Munros climbed on the day are likely to be repeats. I know a couple of people who have finished a round on Sgurr nan Gillean at the end of a full-ridge Cuillin traverse however, and someone else finished a round of Donalds during the Tinto race.

Robert Durran - on 03 Jul 2018
In reply to Dave Hewitt:

> I don't think so - from memory (and from having seen their letters) I can't recall any suggestion that they were "topping up", ie adding new Munros to existing rounds.

I wasn't suggesting they were topping up existing rounds - just that it might have become the sort of inconvenient singleton which might get left to the end of their round.

Simon Caldwell - on 03 Jul 2018
In reply to BedRock:

> to me its being over hyped by her sponsors

To me it's being under hyped! Whether or not it counts as a double Ramsay, it's a quite phenomenal achievement, putting her firmly into the category of all-time greats.

Simon Caldwell - on 03 Jul 2018
In reply to Dave Hewitt:

We very nearly finished during a LAMM, as the courses went over one of our candidate finishing summits. If it had been a couple of years later then that would almost certainly have happened.

Dave Hewitt - on 03 Jul 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I wasn't suggesting they were topping up existing rounds - just that it might have become the sort of inconvenient singleton which might get left to the end of their round.

Possible, but still pretty unlikely - the big ridge systems don't see many completions at all given that people tend to clear them out mid-round. For the Mamores main nine (ie the current eight Munros plus Sgor an Iubhair and excluding the two lower eastern outliers) there have been only 74 known first-round finishes (out of getting on for 7000 all told). Other big ridge systems are similar - eg very few finishes on the Fannaichs or on the Lawers range (although Tarmachan across the road, being more isolated and with a high start, is a popular one to leave until last).

Dave Hewitt - on 03 Jul 2018
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> We very nearly finished during a LAMM, as the courses went over one of our candidate finishing summits. If it had been a couple of years later then that would almost certainly have happened.

Good stuff - such things, even near misses like yours, are pretty rare. Even the people who do the long continuous Munro traverses don't necessarily complete on the last one (but of course do finish a round somewhere along the way). On Hamish Brown's 1974 traverse the round-completion came not on Ben Hope at the end but on Ben More Assynt a couple of days earlier.

Robert Durran - on 03 Jul 2018
In reply to Dave Hewitt:

> Possible, but still pretty unlikely - the big ridge systems don't see many completions at all given that people tend to clear them out mid-round.

But my point was that if they had done the Mamores bypassing Sgor an Iubhair mid-round then, after its promotion, it would have become a remeaining Singleton just like any other which might get left till the end.

alicia - on 03 Jul 2018
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> > to me its being over hyped by her sponsors

> To me it's being under hyped! Whether or not it counts as a double Ramsay, it's a quite phenomenal achievement, putting her firmly into the category of all-time greats.

I just wish her sponsors wouldn't make it seem like such a binary option between success and failure. It doesn't need to be reported as a successful completion for us to understand how amazingly hard and impressive Nicky's run was! She accomplished something that very few people could ever do, in challenging heat--I personally can't even imagine the fitness or mental fortitude required for what she did. Runs like this, which push the current boundaries but end up short of completion of what was planned, are exactly what move sport forward.

The hardest run I've ever done is in the partial success and partial failure category. I'm simultaneously proud of what I did, and itching to go back and finish what I had set out to do. I would feel shortchanged to describe that as solely either a success or a failure.

 

edited because I had a confusing non sequitur!

Post edited at 12:46
Marmoteer - on 03 Jul 2018
In reply to Dave Hewitt:

Well done Nicky!

Dave,

Here is a near miss example on a long distance event; 6 seconds on the Barkley Marathons, a 60hr challenge.  There is a good video on YouTube.

https://runningmagazine.ca/2017-barkley-marathons-recap/

 

Dave Hewitt - on 03 Jul 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> But my point was that if they had done the Mamores bypassing Sgor an Iubhair mid-round then, after its promotion, it would have become a remeaining Singleton just like any other which might get left till the end.

Yes, I know - but while it's possible of course it's still fairly unlikely given that Munro-completion habits appear pretty consistent in terms of how people do/don't go about it. I'll see if I've got any more notes on those two rounds - chances are they just wrote in with basic hill/date info but some people do submit long accounts of how the last one came about. I probably don't have it in me (especially on a nice sunny day) to trail into the Nat Lib and dig out the originals...

Actually, there's another possibility - in a way just as likely as the version you suggest. One or both of Messrs Ashcroft and Lazenby could have already been over Sgor an Iubhair during a pre-1981 Mamores outing but then in due course felt obliged to revisit it as a Munro, and left it to last on that basis. That kind of thing is more common than tends to be realised, re any promoted hill - not topping-up as such but more a sort of end-of-round tidying. There's no requirement to do it - if you've been on a hill you've been on a hill, regardless of what category it was in at the time - but from my own experience I know it can generate a sort of nagging sense of obligation. I'd been on most of the 1997 promotions pre-1997, but in the latter stages of a round that ended in 2007 I started to feel I ought to climb them again as Munros, and duly did so. I've heard of other people taking the same approach, so it's not impossible it happened here.

Robert Durran - on 03 Jul 2018
In reply to Dave Hewitt:

> Actually, there's another possibility.......... felt obliged to revisit it as a Munro, and left it to last on that basis.

That's really weird - even more so than the clean slate approach to multiple rounds!

Post edited at 13:11
DannyC on 03 Jul 2018
In reply to Marmoteer:

I think the 6 secs Barkley thing is slightly incorrect resulting from confusion at the time. Gary Robbins had actually got lost and accidentally missed out two miles of the course on his final lap, which is understandable after 60 hours of running. So his final lap wouldn't have counted even if he'd arrived 6 seconds earlier. Still, some effort! There's an explanation here:  www.facebook.com/trasie.phan/posts/10212547374898805

And regarding Nicky Spinks, Alicia has hit the nail right on the head above. Not complete success and certainly anything but a failure. One of the finest running achievements I know of, in fact. 

D. 
 

Flinticus - on 04 Jul 2018
In reply to DannyC:

> And regarding Nicky Spinks, Alicia has hit the nail right on the head above. Not complete success and certainly anything but a failure. One of the finest running achievements I know of, in fact. 

This: an amazing achievement...I reckon most of the population would not even consider such a feat possible, by anyone of any age, let alone 51 when so many use age as an excuse not to achieve in the physical realm.

Henry Iddon - on 04 Jul 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

To me a double round should be 2 circuits of the single round - otherwise it's not a double. Not covering the circuits in legs or sections. In athletics an  800m race is twice round the 400m track - not one one lap of the track then 4x 100m for 'logistical reasons'.

I also wonder the real value of these 'doubles' - yes it shows 'pluck', the ability to take on a challenge, will power, great endurance etc etc. So in that sense it's all very admirable, and if that floats your boat then go ahead. But where does it end - a triple anyone ? A quad ? Why not just do the 'single' faster - which may take even more training, 'pluck', and will power.

Doubles etc also seem to amplify  the notion that 'suffering is good for you'. Notions propagated by Samual Smiles and Ruskin over 100 years ago and now an intrinsic element of 'outdoor' sports.

Robert Durran - on 04 Jul 2018
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> . In athletics an  800m race is twice round the 400m track.

> I also wonder the real value of these 'doubles' ........ Why not just do the 'single' faster - which may take even more training, 'pluck', and will power.

In athletics, why not just try to run 400m faster - why bother with the 800m? And I'm surprised Mo Farah bothered with the 10000m.

 

madmo2991 - on 04 Jul 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

It is an incredible achievement, it's a shame that the sponsors claim that its a double opens it up to scrutiny which can detract from the amazing feat of running. 

If i were to do something like this it would be 2 consecutive loops for purity but that's just my opinion, the doubles are interesting and i can see it is a big prize to hold the double on the CCR, BGR and PBR. The one i really want to see, if it is at all possible is all 3 rounds done on 3 consecutive days, have any attempts been done?

Simon Caldwell - on 04 Jul 2018
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> But where does it end - a triple anyone ? A quad ? Why not just do the 'single' faster

Why should it end anywhere? Yes, sooner or (most likely) later someone will try a triple, and a quad, according to whatever arbitrary rules they decide to set. Which will either be accepted as an official record, or not, depending on some other ultimately arbitrary rules. None of which will prevent the more common undertaking of trying to do the single faster, nor the even more common one of just trying to get round within 24 hours. Or for most of us, at all.

petestack - on 04 Jul 2018
In reply to madmo2991:

> The one i really want to see, if it is at all possible is all 3 rounds done on 3 consecutive days, have any attempts been done?

Yes. Mike Hartley, July 1990, in 3 days 14 hours 20 minutes including driving. With round times of 21 hours 14 mins (Ramsay), 23 hours 48 mins (BG) and 33 hours 30 mins (PB, for which sub-24's not actually stipulated)!

http://www.gofar.org.uk/UKBig3Records.html

 

ditchy - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

I understand where you're coming from but since no one has done (or reported having done) a double round or variation before then this becomes the record. As is mentioned in the thread, anyone could have come along and said they did it, claimed the record and someone else could come along and beat it. Personally, I would say 48hrs is the gold standard but, for example, the 4 minute mile was something people strived for but still people had run the mile before the day Bannister managed it and there was still a record time. As Charlie Ramsay has put on his site, it is a double with variation. As Nicky Spinks has said herself, she may have done the route differently with the benefit of hindsight ie. One round clw, one round aclw. I wouldn't be surprised if she does it as well, once the weather is cooler and she has recovered, maybe autumn or late spring next year. It's beyond my comprehension even attempting this as the Ramsay is hard enough already!

pasbury on 09:28 Thu

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.