Latest News: Read more



Discussion Forum - Hundreds - Should Hundreds be more achievable


Author: Mark Edwards
Posted: Sun 11th Aug 2019, 10:35
Joined: 1980
Local Group: Merseystride
Some hundreds are easier than others (but none of them are easy - they shouldn't be) - but I think it would impossible to agree on what is easier and what isn't. Speaking personally (and the experience of 27 LDWA 100 completions), the things that make a hundred harder are: long flat sections, hard ground (especially tarmac), steep downhills (especially on tarmac), very rocky trails. So my ideal 100 would be continuously undulating, probably have around 4000m of ascent with steeper uphills and more gradual downhills on grassy tracks, no long road sections, no long and flat railway/canal/reservoir sections. I don’t expect everyone to share this opinion. The point is that to have some 'easier' 100s, they need to vary - and that is exactly what they do anyway, being in different parts of the country and different terrains. So we can all decide for ourselves whether a 100 might be classed as easier.
Clearly the weather also plays a part and can make an 'easy' 100 dificult - but you have to cope with what comes, and again we won’t agree on what the best conditions are. It all depends on how you cope with heat, cold, wind, rain. As an example the Valleys 100 may have been very wet, but the temperature was perfect (at least in my opinion! )
Author: Julian White
Posted: Sat 10th Aug 2019, 9:59
Joined: 2011
Local Group: Norfolk & Suffolk
Personally, I would like to see an occasional 100 being 'easier' than some of the recent ones. As an example, if a group such as Norfolk & Suffolk were to try and put on the 100, we'd struggle somewhat to find the equivalent of Cross Fell in our midst. The distance of the 100 is a huge challenge in itself, and perhaps what is perceived as a marginally more achievable event might encourage some entrants who might otherwise feel that it's too much of a challenge for them to take part.
Author: Jeff Stevens
Posted: Mon 5th Aug 2019, 20:57
Joined: 2014
Local Group: West Yorkshire
Hi There
I am Taking a different view on this but before joining the LDWA I used to do endurance Hikes which were run by Fell running associations and running clubs.
Also company's who were in it just to make money.

What I have found with joining the Ldwa that they apply the personal touch .we all interact and have fun Safety comes more into the scope of the walk and the walks
are really cheap a large profit does not come into this.

All The 100s I have been involved in are hard which i would not expect any less as for the Hadrian Hundred as I was walking around all I thought was what a special but due to
the conditions made it particularly difficult as we were walking around all we were saying no way are we going to fail all the hard work that as gone into it,
And all the time people have put into setting it up for us and manning the check points.

I had done my homework with what to wear due to the conditions ,I still found this short of what was needed but as going over from Gregs hut all the help I received the reassurance I got
all the help from fellow hikers that went through the same as me helped me.
Would I change any off it no I wouldn't this is why I joined the LDWA.

Many thanks for all your hard work Jeff
Author: Andy Todd
Posted: Wed 31st Jul 2019, 19:33
Joined: 2010
Local Group: Wiltshire
There is a risk here of the tail wagging the dog. We are a walking association, and as such it may well be reasonable, particularly for the 'flag ship' event, to not structure its self as a running event. There after all events which accommodate that market, which may be more suitable.

Just because an event can be structured that way doesnt mean it should. (Maybe my view here is prejudiced by the negative actions, and risk to the association reputation, of runners that were so obvious this year). However events do have to cover their considerable costs, and if the event is not viable without runners then there is little option.

I do feel the policy to restrict entries to only those that have completed a challenge event has the potential to restrict entries. The restriction to challenge events (I fully understand the concept of at least 50) does mean that the options for people to try a longer distance are reduced.
Author: Shirley Hume
Posted: Tue 30th Jul 2019, 15:38
Joined: 1980
Local Group: South Wales
To put this in context - I have completed the last 38 100s [including both events in 1990] and only 3 of those had no finishers under 24 hours. The three were Lakeland, which was tough and had bad weather, Scotland which was 104.4 miles long [officially] but had several finishers under 25 hours and The Valleys 100 which suffered from torrential rain. We don't want to discourage anyone from taking part provided they are members of the LDWA and have completed a suitable qualifier. Many of the sub 24 hour finishers from years past are still walking 100s, many discovering the delights of the second night, while on the 2020 organising committee we have two people who [in their heyday] were sub 24 hour hundred finishers. It is not uncommon for checkpoints to be asked to open early if the late starters are getting ahead of the schedule the organisers have set, the alternative being to let people start as late as they like and then keep the early checkpoints open much longer than necessary. With the joys of modern communication opening early isn't a problem as news can be passed down the line about expected arrival times and the later checkpoints have the marshals sleeping in the hall overnight. The difference for the Sir Fynwy 100 is that we have been upfront and explicit about how the staggered start will work to try and encourage people not to simply opt for 10.00am as the default position.
Author: Don Arthurs
Posted: Tue 30th Jul 2019, 9:42
Joined: 2017
Local Group: Kent
Completing the 100 in 22 hours, across broken ground / hills / with self navigation, means moving at a constant speed of 4.5 miles an hour without stopping for a single minute at a single checkpoint or anywhere else.

A very good walker can achieve that across a flat metalled course, and if they did would justly be called a centurion. I'm yet to be convinced a 'one foot on the ground at all times' walker can achieve it on an LDWA 100.

I understood us to be a walking association, on whose challenges runners were welcome but where the checkpoint timings were specifically constructed around walking. The proposed timings benefit and encourage only runners, hence my earlier comments. Whether the shift is good, bad or benign is open to discussion, but a shift it is.
Author: Andrew Clabon
Posted: Mon 29th Jul 2019, 21:17
Joined: 1982
Local Group: South Wales
I feel I need to respond to the second paragraph of Don Arthurs’ recent post on this thread.

I am part of the committee that is organising Y 100 Sir Fynwy next May and have been involved in working out the checkpoint opening/closing times. This has not been easy due to us having a staggered start. Early checkpoints will open in time for early starters (the slower walkers) but we expect the later starters (runners/joggers) to catch up and therefore later checkpoints open to suit these quicker moving entrants.

Our checkpoint opening schedule is based around somebody finishing the event in 22 hours having started at 14:00. We have made no reference to the event being a race as we are by name a walking organisation.

We will be suggesting that anyone thinking they may compete Y 100 Sir Fynwy in less than 27 hours considers starting at 14:00.

We will be saying that if anyone starts at 14:00 and arrives at a checkpoint early it proves we have the wrong opening time for that checkpoint. Therefore, we will open the checkpoint early for those 14:00 starters. This is not to promote people to try for a personal best as Don is suggesting (as it will only apply to 14:00 starters) but is an attempt on our part to try and get people to opt for a later start rather than starting early and arriving with many other people before a checkpoint opens and causing checkpoint overloading.

This is a repeat of what we did in 2014 for The Valleys 100.
Author: Don Arthurs
Posted: Sun 28th Jul 2019, 10:44
Joined: 2017
Local Group: Kent
Having read the letter in question I'd have to agree that I don't see any sarcasm in it, or any ill will at all. It's just an expression of an opinion, it might not match YOUR opinion but as with most opinion it's equally valid.

If it's PB's and the subject of racing in general that winds you up, I'd suggest a reread of next years 100 detail around start times and CP opening times. It appears to be a radical shift away from a 'timed around walking' event that accepts runners to a full on running / walking event. Unless I've misread, for late starters (runners) CP's will now open whenever you turn up rather that at the set opening time.
Author: Dave Clifton
Posted: Thu 25th Jul 2019, 7:11
Joined: 2011
Local Group: Northumbria
I am with Tony on this issue, the crossing of Cross Fell has been done by Pennine wayers since 1965 and I also traversed it in poor weather last week but had suitable clothing. The helm wind was our fear and our inspection shortly before the first people arriving at Gregs hut found that although it was breezy it was walkable. Tony's statistics on completion made the point quite clearly and it backed our decision to go ahead with the traverse.
Without labouring the point , I think that David Morgan's video on You tube shot on the marshals walk answers the questions about the suitability of the 100 challenge route. One for all to think, study the weather forecast , and plan what to wear whether its a group walk or a 100 challenge but please stop all this negativity of our route, its in the past now and all entrants have a responsibility on how to handle if bad weather or hot weather is forecast.
Author: Kurt Bullock
Posted: Wed 24th Jul 2019, 21:27
Joined: 2019
Local Group: Norfolk & Suffolk
I am a new member and I have never attempted a 100. I'm not sure if that makes my opinion valid or completely mute. However, to my mind challenge walks should be exactly that. I was slightly perplexed by her closing remarks in stating that people should be content with just gaining a PB? Please let's not go down that route as I have no interest in a race. I look forward to attempting my first 100 next year with all the challenges that it will bring.
Author: Andy Todd
Posted: Wed 24th Jul 2019, 19:00
Joined: 2010
Local Group: Wiltshire
"There is no such thing as bad weather, only inappropriate clothing." and there were a significant number of entrants with inappropriate clothing.

The correct minimum kit needs to be a consideration (and these days the checking and if necessary DQ of entrants) in making the decision on a route. If that minimum kit is considered too much then a route needs to be managed to an acceptable risk. This fundamentally is no different from all other aspects of the organisation.

There are always advantages in doing something first.
Author: Simon Pipe
Posted: Wed 24th Jul 2019, 18:50
Joined: 2006
Local Group: Heart of England
I can well understand that organisers of the Hadrian's Hvndred might feel a bit "got at" in some of the responses to the Cross Fell traverse. Being on the receiving end of negative comments about the weather is not much of a reward for delivering a generally wonderful and ambitious event. But I feel the reaction here to the letter in Strider has been unduly harsh. I saw no sarcasm.

Tony, would you consider toning down your post? Then we can have a measured discussion of a valid question.
Author: Tony Deall
Posted: Tue 23rd Jul 2019, 22:28
Joined: 1985
Local Group: Cumbria
It would be easy not to respond to Natalie Aird’s letter in the current edition of Strider but she makes several criticisms of the Hadrian Hundred which deserve answering. The main thrust of her argument is that LDWA Hundreds are becoming too challenging and should be made easier in some way to allow a greater percentage of finishers.
She illustrates this by quoting the 38% drop out rate on the HH, blaming it mainly on the poor conditions experienced over Cross Fell. She makes sarcastic remarks about the ‘wrong kind of bad weather’ not triggering the bad weather alternative.
To clarify – the bad weather alternative would only have been used as a planned route well in advance of the Event starting if it was clear that conditions over the Cross Fell plateau might be impossible. This was clearly not the case as 420 out of 478 (88%) made it to Dufton.
She makes the very strange allegation that we ‘stole’ Cross Fell from some yet to be organised Hundred. Yes – we were proud to take the route higher than any previous Hundred!
She reported several queries about the route after her reccie walk all of which were looked at and dealt with. I’m sorry all this put her off entering but perhaps it’s just as well.
She mentions the unpalatability of walking much over 100 miles though doesn’t appear to have thought through the dilemma a route organiser might have in devising a route which is exactly (and certainly not less) than the right amount.
I’m interested to hear if others really want to go down this way or are happy to continue to be presented with a real challenge which may be exacerbated by bad weather.

This website uses cookies

To comply with EU Directives we are informing you that our website uses cookies for services such as memberships and Google Analytics.

Your data is completely safe and we do not record any personally identifiable information.

Please click the button to acknowledge and approve our use of cookies during your visit.

Learn more about the Cookie Law