Skip to page content | Using this site

Member Login: Join

Discussion Forum - Events - Disappearing 100 qualifier events

Author: David Findel-Hawkins
Posted: Fri 23rd Mar 2018, 15:03
Joined: 1980
Local Group: Beds, Bucks and Northants
Shropshire 80K

In case anyone was wondering, they are taking new entries for the revised date.

Author: Janet R Pitt-Lewis
Posted: Mon 19th Mar 2018, 19:54
Joined: 1993
Local Group: Marches
There are special arrangements for the Shropshire Way 80 km - see Cinque Port "Qualifying Events" page

Author: Ian Hull
Posted: Mon 19th Mar 2018, 12:41
Joined: 2005
Local Group: South Pennine
According to a BBC article the Hardmoors 55 was abandoned at Kildale in blizzard conditions with the MRT in attendance

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-43451964

Author: Mike Childs
Posted: Mon 19th Mar 2018, 12:12
Joined: 1990
Local Group: Dorset
I have just seen that the Hardmoors 55 was also interrupted by the bad weather and many of people could not (or were not allowed to) complete the last sections after Kildale. It was another qualifier for the Cinque Ports 100

Author: Janet R Pitt-Lewis
Posted: Sun 18th Mar 2018, 19:55
Joined: 1993
Local Group: Marches
It has been rearranged for the 28th April which is after entries to the Hundred close but I know the organiser has contacted the Cinque Ports 100 organisers to request an extension for those thwarted by the weather conditions this weekend

Author: John D Owen
Posted: Sun 18th Mar 2018, 17:36
Joined: 1994
Local Group: Heart of England
just for information the Shropshire 80 km (qualifier) planned for the 17th March was postponed due to the weather, I think the guy said it was being re arranged for the 28th April

Author: Louise Whittaker
Posted: Sun 11th Mar 2018, 22:09
Joined: 1994
Local Group: Staffordshire
Noted that the WOW and 'Afoot in Two Dales' are only a week apart. I have opted for the latter. Unable to do both. Do local groups collaborate when confirming the date for a 50 event? Collaboration may prevent inadvertently compromising attendance across events.

Author: Michael Jones
Posted: Sun 11th Mar 2018, 21:58
Joined: 2011
Local Group: Dorset
Michael - I apologise if "last-minuters" like me make it more difficult to plan events, but the reason I haven't (yet) entered the WOW is that I haven't planned that far in advance. If I find nearer the time that I'm able to enter the event then I promise you I will.

Author: Tony Willey
Posted: Fri 2nd Mar 2018, 16:55
Joined: 1989
Local Group: Lakeland
Just tripped across this thread, in particular John Pennifold's post back in August 2017. There is a thread under Hundreds - Hadrian Hundred which deals with this.

The HH100 website will be up and running shortly after the Cinque Ports event. We don't want to steal Kent's thunder.

Author: Michael Cook
Posted: Thu 1st Mar 2018, 10:38
Joined: 2007
Local Group: Marches
I make no apologies in resurrecting this item regarding disappearing qualifiers for the 100.
As many will know the Shropshire Marches group are putting on the WOW 50 this year June 30 – 1 July.
Despite peoples concerns regarding the lack of 50’s the uptake for the WOW 2018 is to date ‘poor’.
This event is held in some wonderful countryside in South Shropshire and will prove excellent value compared to some non LDWA events ‘that’s just my personal view’.
The event was cancelled last year as I believe it proved hard to get sufficient support to put the event on at the high standard expected, this has been overcome for 2018 so please give this event some thought and consideration otherwise who knows it could disappear and that would be very sad.
I would be interested to know if anyone has considered this event and decided not to do it, what put you off what would you like changed? Please give your comments it would help a lot.
I would like to make it known I’m a member of the Marches group but the above is my personal comments and not preapproved by my group, I’m just keen to see the WOW become a success this year and in the future.

Author: John Pennifold
Posted: Wed 30th Aug 2017, 20:30
Joined: 1996
Local Group: London
Seeing Graham Jones’ Facebook posting today asking about LDWA 50+ qualifiers for 100s reminded me about the ruling of the 17 months qualifying period for any particular 100 walk.

Bearing these 17 months in mind, I realised that the 17 months for the 2019 100 starts in January 2018. In that case I was wondering if there are any plans to start a forum page for that event in the very near future, listing at the very least, events which will be considered to be valid qualifiers.

Searching today for LDWA 50+ events between 01/01/18 and 28/05/19 produces just 5 events:
Sat 14th - Sun 15th Apr 2018 Wye Forest 50
Sat 5th - Mon 7th May 2018 Cinque Ports Marshals 100
Sat 26th - Mon 28th May 2018 Cinque Ports 100
Fri 29th Jun - Sun 1st Jul 2018 Snowdonia Challenge
Sat 7th - Sun 8th Jul 2018 Afoot in Two Dales

To this list the following non-LDWA events can be added:
17th Mar 2018 Hardmoors 55
28th - 29th Apr 2018 Fellsman
Sept 2018 Bullock Smithy Hike
Oct 2018 Longmynd Hike
Oct 2018 Round Rotherham Run

Author: David Morgan
Posted: Fri 4th Aug 2017, 20:12
Joined: 1994
Local Group: South Wales
On 27th April, I said that I would update the thread having engaged with others on the NEC who have an opinion on this subject. The conclusion is that with 17 months as a qualifying period prior to the annual 100, there is sufficient time for people to make arrangements to walk 50 miles on an event that fits the required criteria. Furthermore, an increase in the number of 50 mile events has been seen to develop in the forthcoming year with some exciting new events, two of which are in the north of England.

I guess that we do need to remind ourselves that the events are put on by volunteers and that due to this fact the events' locations will be determined by which active LDWA groups are willing to put in the additional hard yards to run the 50 mile events. But, in summary, with plenty of notice, people can try and plan their annual calendars within a 17 month period to obtain the necessary qualification.

David Morgan
100 Coordinator

Author: Matthew Hand
Posted: Fri 19th May 2017, 11:37
Joined: 2001
Local Group: Mid Wales
I'm not so sure the high entry fee will ensure participants are properly prepared and experienced enough, I have a suspicion that the first 3 days may see a high drop out rate from the full race (even given good weather conditions).
It is more to do with how peoples minds work (and self estimation of their own abilities) than how deep their pockets are!

It will be interesting to see, if anyone wants to follow it from Monday morning the entrants have trackers here: http://www.berghausdragonsbackrace.com/

Author: Michael Jones
Posted: Thu 18th May 2017, 15:46
Joined: 2011
Local Group: Dorset
Matthew - I think the £800 entry fee is the key there! Not many people are going to fork out that amount if they don't believe that they have a realistic chance of finishing, whereas more might be prepared to pay the entry fee for a Hundred (usually £70-80) or a 50 (typically £15-25 for LDWA events, more for other organisations') even if they're not taking it seriously.

Dave G - although I agree that the onus shouldn't be on the organisers to ensure that entrants are fit, it's clearly advantageous if they are - someone collapsing or getting lost in the middle of nowhere inconveniences everyone involved. Requiring a qualifier at any time (to test navigation) would reduce the likelihood of getting lost, but it would require a recent one (to test fitness) to reduce the likelihood of collapsing.

Author: Matthew Hand
Posted: Tue 16th May 2017, 13:43
Joined: 2001
Local Group: Mid Wales
This Saturday we set off for a week marshalling on the Dragons Back Race (5 day mountain race down the spine of Wales) this is our 3rd event as marshals.

Interestingly, this year the organiser has not vetted entrants or demanded minimum qualifier events, making fitness and gaining experience for the event is left entirely up to the entrant. The following wording is from the entry website:



COMPETITOR DECLARATION

Each aspirant competitor must agree to the following Competitor Declaration when completing an application form:

I am an experienced off-road runner and believe that I have a reasonable chance of completing the Berghaus Dragon’s Back Race™ as it is described on this website, and declare that:
•I am capable of being self-sufficient and making safe decisions in the remote mountainous terrain;
•I have sufficient off road running, mountain and ultra experience to understand the nature of the challenge;
•I will apply sound mountain judgement at all times even if it means compromising my overall race result;
•I accept full responsibility for my own safety and any injury sustained during the event. These are not the responsibility of the event organiser, their agents or the landowners;
•I know my limitations and I am experienced enough to make a reasoned decision whether or not to start the event and/or to retire from the event rather than jeopardise my own or other people’s safety;


It will be interesting to see how it goes regards dropout rates (bearing in mind that entry fee is about £800), one would expect competitors to be fully prepared and experienced.

Author: Dave Goodfellow
Posted: Tue 16th May 2017, 0:31
Joined: 2007
Local Group: North Yorkshire
And as for the original question. They state the list is subject to change.

As the Hardmoors 55 is included presumably the following would count:

Hardmoors 60
Hardmoors 110
Hardmoors 160 (although I think the 200 replaced the 160 this year)
Hardmoors 200

Likely adding a further 3 to the list (although Hardmoors events only really for the fleet of foot.

Author: Dave Goodfellow
Posted: Tue 16th May 2017, 0:23
Joined: 2007
Local Group: North Yorkshire
DavidW.
"if the organisers have a responsibility to assess whether an entrant is realistically likely to be able to complete a 100".

I don't think the onus is on the organisers for this. If anything there is possibly an onus to ensure the entrants can take part safely, which ultimately comes down to navigation and equipment - not fitness. I had a three year hiatus between my last endurance event and a qualifying 60-miler. I finished the 60 miler, it was tough, but at no point did I get lost, mislaid or had any problems with navigation. Once properly learnt, or possibly with a natural talent for, navigation skills don't depart easily, whereas I would agree fitness does.

So requiring a 50-miler within 12-months of the event is probably the best measure of navigation (night time, solo, when tired) without requiring detailed evidence of skills, events undertaken, finishing times, amount of navigation completed in the dark. This would be impractical to manage.

A kit list resolves the equipment issue.

And fitness? Well thats down to the individual and their desire to finish not just start. Besides it couldn't be measured in the normal sense. Some of the entrants aren't that fit - but are possibly hard as nails. Would you desire a heart rate trace as per some French events. Maybe a beep test? I am not sure what's makes a person able to finish a 100 or how it could be measured.

The entrance requirements are reasonable from a safety perspective and not too impossible to comply with.
Dave

Author: Ian Sykes
Posted: Mon 15th May 2017, 20:25
Joined: 1986
Local Group: East Yorkshire
Can I ask why my last post has been remove? I also think it would have been etiquette to have e-mailed me with the reasons that you feel that my post broke any forum rules.

Ian Sykes.

Author: David Wright
Posted: Tue 9th May 2017, 12:34
Joined: 2014
Local Group: Marches
Unlike most of you, I'm a novice to long distance walking events so the NYM100 will be my first.
I set my sights on the 2017 event more than a year and a half ago and I decided the best preparation for a 100 should be to walk big events over almost 2 years to give myself confidence that I was up to the task. As well as a lot of other walking, within the qualifying period for this 100, I completed the Wenlock Olympian 16, the Long Mynd Hike 16 and the Fellsman 17. All leave me at least 38 miles short of 100 miles so I can't be certain I'm up to the challenge of 100 miles but I've walked and navigated in all weathers and conditions so I'm "qualified" and I've given myself the best preparation I can. On the other hand, there are people that I walked with on each of these "qualifier" events that wouldn't have a chance of completing this NYM100 - preparedness is a different thing from qualification - if you don't use that experience and fitness that you gain on the qualifiers, you lose it.
Because this is my first 100, I may be taking this more seriously than I would if I was a veteran of several events but hypothetically, I could have qualified for this event by walking a 50 more than a year before and doing nothing in between then and now; surely that would be irresponsible - to myself and to the organisers of the 100. This will make me unpopular but if the organisers have a responsibility to assess whether an entrant is realistically likely to be able to complete a 100, there's definitely an argument that the qualifying period could be shorter rather than longer.
I can't help wondering though, how many people can there be out there who want to participate in a 100 but lack the qualifying event? Is this a big problem?

Author: Mike Childs
Posted: Sun 7th May 2017, 10:14
Joined: 1990
Local Group: Dorset
I like a bit of topic drift. That is sometimes how useful discoveries are made.

Author: Iain Connell
Posted: Fri 5th May 2017, 18:02
Joined: 2010
Local Group: North Yorkshire
The last four posts qualify (!) as topic drift ...

Iain

Author: Ian Sykes
Posted: Thu 4th May 2017, 19:09
Joined: 1986
Local Group: East Yorkshire
Many years ago while doing an event in the Dales in thick fog I had a very well known northern jogger / runner past me 6 times. The last time he past me was within 3 miles of the finish and he went the wrong way right in front of me. No way was I going to tell him. Ended up finishing a good 15 minutes in front of him. :-)

Author: Michael Jones
Posted: Thu 4th May 2017, 17:43
Joined: 2011
Local Group: Dorset
I must be an exception in avoiding relying entirely on someone else's navigation, then. Possibly because I'm aware that on most events I enter, almost every other entrant will be faster than me so I need to make sure that if they do leave me behind (highly likely) I won't be completely stuffed. On last year's Charnwood Marathon I stopped at a path junction to check the route description, while the walker in front of me ploughed straight on. By the time I'd double-checked everything and was sure I was supposed to turn right, she was out of earshot. She caught up with me a mile or so later and complained (tongue in cheek) that I should have told her!

Author: Matthew Hand
Posted: Mon 1st May 2017, 12:56
Joined: 2001
Local Group: Mid Wales
I've always found "navigation by committee" a complete disaster, any group I'm in usually disagree at some point and we go our separate ways, so I try to avoid grouping, preferring to be on my own. Always plenty of people willing to follow though!

Author: Ian Sykes
Posted: Sun 30th Apr 2017, 10:48
Joined: 1986
Local Group: East Yorkshire
I strongly disagree with Michael when he states " I think it's rather harsh to assume that when two or more people are walking together, at least one of them is making no contribution to navigation;" When I was doing night events I got so fedup with other walkers walking 10 yards behind me and using me as their personal route finder that I always wear a black top with a hood and on entering a wood I would turn off my light and run like h***. I was very happy to do the map reading for them if the same walkers walked alongside of me and helped in some way like opening gates ect. And in the past I've have walkers having a go at me for going wrong when they was blindly following without any attempt at map reading.

Author: Michael Jones
Posted: Sat 29th Apr 2017, 23:02
Joined: 2011
Local Group: Dorset
Some thoughts... I agree that a qualifier is necessary to dissuade entrants who have no chance at all of completing the event (a few 50s require a 25 or 30 mile event as a qualifier for the same reason). Of course having completed 50 miles does not guarantee that one will complete 100, since anything can happen on the weekend itself, but not having completed 50 makes it extremely unlikely that one can complete 100. My first 100 entry was a conditional one - with my qualifier to come after I'd entered. I hadn't previously done anything longer than 40 miles, and when I completed my first 50 it was a noticeable step up from the 40: from starting shortly before dawn and ending an hour or so after dark in April, to walking through most of the night in February. As it happened, I still failed to finish the 100, but if I hadn't done two 50s beforehand I doubt I'd have got as far as I did in the 100.

Timeframe: there clearly needs to be one; the same event shouldn't be used as a qualifier for multiple 100s. Whether the purpose of the qualifier is to test fitness, navigational skills or both, either can be lost by inactivity. The one thing which is never lost is the recollection of what walking through the night feels like! The current limit seems fine to me; increasing it would start to allow events which are little or no indicator of the entrant's current fitness or abilities, while lowering it would be difficult given that entries for each 100 close several months before the event.

Criteria: as David points out, even completion of an event entered individually does not guarantee that one possesses any navigational skills. However, I think it's rather harsh to assume that when two or more people are walking together, at least one of them is making no contribution to navigation; I'd say it's more often the case that they're cross-checking against each other - even experienced navigators can make mistakes, and it helps to have someone else who can spot them. If anyone does rely completely on a friend to do their navigation, I suspect the friendship may be short-lived. I note that the list of qualifying events for 2018 specifies that a completion of the Peak District Challenge must be as an individual, but allows the Tour de Trigs, which is a team event - clearly a departure from previous policy: I lost a potential team-mate on the 2015 TDT because he wanted to do it as a qualifier for the 2016 Hundred and had been told it wouldn't be accepted. I found this absurd, since the TDT is a far greater navigational challenge than most LDWA events. The latter have route descriptions which are often sufficiently detailed to make them the only navigational aid necessary for much of the event, with a map and compass only brought out to resolve the occasional uncertainty. The TDT just gives the grid references of the checkpoints and self-clips, leaving teams to devise their own route between them. On top of that, being held less than three weeks from the winter solstice, it requires more night walking than just about any other 50 (and forbids the use of GPS, which almost all other events allow) - team or no team, it's a tough event. The Fellsman enforces grouping during the night stretch and is still included as a qualifier; given that being an individual event does not guarantee that an individual has done all the navigation him/herself, being a team event seems tenuous grounds for exclusion. Why not just allow any event which requires at least 50 miles of continuous (i.e. no overnight stops), primarily off-road walking/running?

Of course, a runner or fast walker on a spring/summer event is more than capable of completing 50 miles entirely in daylight, so he/she could qualify for a Hundred without having demonstrated an ability to do anything at night - but one cannot realistically stipulate that only walkers who finished after nightfall can use it as a qualifier. The only ways to ensure that every finisher on a 50 has had to walk/run at night are to hold it in winter or start it in the evening, and in the current calendar, only the TDT and Poppyline do the former, and the Peak District Challenge is the only event I know of which does the latter (although the AWW with its 5am start also ensures some darkness).

I have to agree with Janet's point - not all 50s are equal, and some events of 40-45 miles are certainly more difficult than some of 50+. John's "The Easiest Possible 50 Miler to Get You Qualified for a 100" is a title which has already been taken - much as I enjoy the Poppyline as my local event, a completely flat 50 is no preparation if the 100 has any ascent at all. Particularly given the infrequency of 50s, I'd suggest it would be reasonable to count a 40+ as a qualifier if other aspects of the event (ascent, navigation etc.) are judged to make it comparable in difficulty to a 50.

Author: Nick Ford
Posted: Thu 27th Apr 2017, 20:55
Joined: 1996
Local Group: The Irregulars
Talking of new 50s. The Irregulars are pleased to announce that it will be running A Foot In Two Dales in 2018. The expected dates will be Sat 8th/Sun 9th Apr, subject to the availability of the village halls. More details to follow.

Author: John Pennifold
Posted: Thu 27th Apr 2017, 9:28
Joined: 1996
Local Group: London
Slow down Dave. I was wondering about the suggestion, not thinking about the organising. I was wondering about the minimum requirements purely to enable would-be 100ers to qualify, not trying to make an interesting walk. I was wondering about making it as easy as possible in terms of organising, route finding, ascent, roughness etc. Maybe call it "The Easiest Possible 50 Miler to Get You Qualified for a 100'.
Still only just wondering....... with a twinkle in my eye.
Thanks for the links & guidance.

Author: David Morgan
Posted: Thu 27th Apr 2017, 6:58
Joined: 1994
Local Group: South Wales
Two things from me:

1. I see the forum as a way of engaging with the wider membership. I will take the concerns raised, and suggestions aired to the NEC for discussion.

2. John - Great to see that you're thinking of organising an event. I have added a link to the helpful guide to walk organisers. It is dated but is still sound.
https://www.ldwa.org.uk/library/guidelines/guidelines.php

To access the LDWA public liability insurance, you'll need to get your local group to put the event on and you would be the organiser. I see that you're a member of the London group, and some discussions of your event on the social walks would be the best way of getting interest from your fellow group members and enthusing them to support your quest to put on a 50 mile event..

There is no minimum height of ascent and unless you are arranging a kanter, then you'll need to ensure that you have regularly placed checkpoints.

At the risk of hurting your feelings on your route choice, you might wish to be a little more creative, as I can't see many people entering an event that goes up a canal and returns by the same way. Neither does a route such as you have described test the navigational abilities of an entrant at night time. But, a canal combined with other countryside might be attractive to other LDWA members. I quite like a canal walk and have entered the Birmingham Canal Canter this year to explore the city by our oldest form of motorways!

If you get your event off the ground, I look forward to seeing it make the LDWA calendar and join other events that would be a suitable qualifying walk for the annual 100 mile event.

Regards,

David Morgan
100 Coordinator

Author: John Pennifold
Posted: Wed 26th Apr 2017, 21:03
Joined: 1996
Local Group: London
Thinking about the suggestion to organise a 50 miler, I wonder what are the minimum requirements for one?
Suppose that I organise an overnight walk along the Grand Union canal; 25 miles out then 25 miles back. Would that be sufficient? Is there a minimum ascent or minimum distance on footpaths? How many checkpoints are required? How much food or drink has to be provided? and many more such questions.
Just wondering......

Author: Matthew Hand
Posted: Wed 26th Apr 2017, 20:42
Joined: 2001
Local Group: Mid Wales
I am the worlds worst and most unenthusiastic organiser, been there and done that back in ldwa days when we could get by with entries on a few bits of paper, basic route description (knowing that everyone could use a map and compass and would arrive back at base at some point in time) and nobody had heard of risk assessments and other related issues.

Ahhhh, the good old days of Nev T's Mid Wales mountain marathon over Cadair (and up and down to ****** Ratgoed in all weathers, Jane and my all nighter - Blue Moon Walk from Elan valleys and more......those were the days, brings a tear to my eye!

So NO to organising anything. We still do a lot of volunteering though not much on ldwa events nowdays, Dragons Back race next - that's a whole week of solid hard graft - our third one.

Author: Philip Clarke
Posted: Wed 26th Apr 2017, 19:34
Joined: 1995
Local Group: Marches
Mathew, how about organising a 50, I'm sure it would be well supported and you could use the marshals walk as your qualifying event.

Author: Bryan Thorpe
Posted: Wed 26th Apr 2017, 19:18
Joined: 2007
Local Group: North Yorkshire
As coordinator for the 2017 Marshals event I feel the need to raise the issue of due diligence, especially bearing in mind the Fells Runner Associations travails with the Coroner following a death on one of their events. I, probably like some of you, grew up in a far less litigious era and an era where there was not much in the way of a blame culture. The qualifier rules may seem regimented there may be questions around how effective they are, but as an organiser if anything goes wrong I have to be prepared to stand up at a coroners court or face questioning from an entrants families solicitor. So I will always seek advice and follow that advice from the elected members of the LDWA committee and in particular the 100's member, David Morgan. As an organiser of the event I would be putting myself in an invidious position, should an incident occur on the walk, were I to not follow guidelines laid down.

Author: Bill Lancashire
Posted: Wed 26th Apr 2017, 10:05
Joined: 2003
Local Group: Cornwall & Devon
I agree with Janet that the qualifying procedure for the '100' does now seem to have "got too regimented". I can remember back when I contemplated entering for my 1st '100' without having a 'qualifier' and a telephone conversion with the organiser informed me that up until a fixed date those entries with a 'qualifier' were automatically valid' After that date the organiser would consider others without such a 'qualifier' using a very sensible approach based on recent experience of the applicant.

Author: Matthew Hand
Posted: Wed 26th Apr 2017, 9:51
Joined: 2001
Local Group: Mid Wales
The 2018 hundred is 13 months away, a long time but how can one qualify (all presuming one is not on this 100)?

There are 8 qualifying events listed, these cover just 6 weekends, with 5 events in September, 2 on Oct, 1 in Dec. Sadly the excellent Wenlock walk is cancelled.
They include the Bullock Smithy and Longmynd where walkers are grouped after dark, which defeats the object of any solo night walking and I hate that anyway!

Of those events just 3 are ldwa organised - all 3 in September (don't get injured or ill in September!).

There must be others like myself who want to enter the ldwa 100 miler and would also like to qualify on an ldwa organised 50 event (as we have to keep qualifying) not running round Rotherham or an enforced night group over the longmynd.

This isn't meant at a criticism of groups, I understand that everyone is "marshalled out" in June and the logistics of organising long distances etc. but June/July/August certainly deserve longer walks - there must be plenty of members not doing the 100 that would like a longer challenge than the incessant 25 - 35 milers through the lovely summer months?

This thread was about "disappearing 100 qualifier events" and the facts are that 13 months away from the 2018 hundred there are just 3 ldwa organised events on the qualifying list. I think there is a point to this thread and an opportunity for groups to get together and try to offer other opportunities - or change the rules!

Author: John Pennifold
Posted: Wed 26th Apr 2017, 8:27
Joined: 1996
Local Group: London
Very interesting thread so far.
The question now is, can we expect to see any changes before entry opens for the 2018 100?

Author: David Findel-Hawkins
Posted: Tue 25th Apr 2017, 11:41
Joined: 1980
Local Group: Beds, Bucks and Northants
Just to get the facts correct. Competitive events are not banned as qualifiers. They just do not get listed on the LDWA website or in Strider.

Anyone who takes the time to look as the list of qualifying events for this years Hundred will see 22 events listed including, both the Long Mynd Hike and Round Rotherham.

Author: Iain Connell
Posted: Tue 25th Apr 2017, 11:16
Joined: 2010
Local Group: North Yorkshire
Matthew's suggestion of the 50-mile qualifier for first attempts only, but not thereafter, sounds sensible. Janet's point about ballots sounds odd (if the purpose of the single 50-mile qualifier was to reduce over-subscription, the lack of ballots since introduction implies that it's been successful !). How about:

"For the first Hundred attempt: A minimum of 50 miles in the previous year over one or more events, at least one of which must include night-time navigation;
"for any subsequent Hundred attempt: A minimum of 50 miles in the previous year over one or more events,
"the definition of any non-LDWA 'event' being at organisers' discretion."

More trade-offs between rules and admin (but last word to organisers) ?

Iain

Author: Janet R Pitt-Lewis
Posted: Mon 24th Apr 2017, 16:36
Joined: 1993
Local Group: Marches
I see little point in having a qualifier just to stop the Hundred being over subscribed – as far as I know the recent rather cumbersome system of registering in anticipation of having a ballot has never actually led to a ballot being necessary. It’s more important to ensure that LDWA members are guaranteed places ahead of non members – but as the LDWA does almost nothing to advertise the Hundred outside its membership I doubt if that is much of a problem either.
I totally agree that a qualifier is appropriate to put off the hopelessly optimistic and ill prepared – especially as Matt says for the first Hundred. After that you should know what you are letting yourself in for. I think the problem is that it has got too regimented. When Shropshire and Mid Wales organised the Cant Canolbarth we allowed the Across Wales to be used as a qualifier – on the basis that a Welsh Hundred should have a Welsh qualifier and 45 miles across the roughest areas of Mid Wales with choice of route between checkpoints and starting and, for most, finishing in the dark was a better preparation for walking a Hundred in Mid Wales than – dare I say it – 50 miles in Norfolk.
We also allowed to enter a serviceman serving in Afghanistan who had no hope of doing a qualifier but we could hardly suggest he was ill prepared, and a man living in Scotland (when there was no group anywhere near) who did a 50 mile solo overnight local run supported by his running club and certified by its secretary.
I note that competitive events are no longer to be allowed as qualifiers. Well that rules out traditional 50 milers like the Round Rotherham and the Long Mynd Hike as well as one of my favourites, the Lakeland 50. Just because they announce “winners” does not mean that everyone treats them as a race.
Given the limited number of non competitive 50 mile events now on the calendar I fear that increasing numbers of members may struggle to find a qualifier and be in Matthew’s position of having to travel unreasonable distances to prove something that he really doesn’t have to prove.

Author: Matthew Hand
Posted: Mon 24th Apr 2017, 12:40
Joined: 2001
Local Group: Mid Wales
I feel there is a need for a 50 miler as a qualifier in some form, to prevent inexperienced walkers entering the 100 that do not have a concept of the additional physical and mental pressures encountered on a 100 miler - thinking it is simply a matter of being a bit fitter.

But there is a problem with the lack of qualifier events, soon oversubscribed and they serve little purpose as a test of fitness many months before the actual 100.

Personally I've done 2 x 100s (and 50 mile qualifiers), so know exactly what to expect for another 100 miler and would not consider arriving on the start line unprepared, for me the qualifier event adds nothing - I do my own solo 50 miles in training anyway.

I'm considering next years 100, but am faced with chasing a qualifier which will involve a 300-400 mile round trip to do an event in an area I have no interest in visiting, little more than an expensive chore for the sake of box ticking. If I miss that event through injury/illness it adds more pressure and expense.

I think walkers should have done a 50 mile event as entry qualification for a first 100, but after that I see little reason to duplicate it every time, a qualifier 50 or completed 100 ought to be good enough for say 5 years before the need to requalify. This would reduce the pressure on 50 mile events and on the entrants.

Author: Mark Garratt
Posted: Fri 21st Apr 2017, 20:19
Joined: 2016
Local Group: Heart of England
Totally agree . As an experienced ultra runner the countryside looks totally different at night . If you get cold and tired you can easily get into serous trouble . A night time off road event doubled with a 30 miler would suffice for a 100 . Also proof of map reading and compass should also be part of the kit check which is more important than carrying load of mandoryt gear that depends on the individual. Centurion events got the kit spot on

Author: Iain Connell
Posted: Wed 19th Apr 2017, 10:58
Joined: 2010
Local Group: North Yorkshire
I'd agree with David's analysis, except for single vs multiple qualifying events. How about a combination of total distance and time-of-day, such as:

"A minimum of 50 miles in the previous year over one or more events, at least one of which must include night-time navigation" ?

That would allow either a single 50-miler, or a combination of (e.g.) one 35-miler over (up to) 14 hours and one 25-miler over 10 hours. It might encourage the inclusion of later starts (or more late Autumn to early Spring events) for those wanting night-time experience. One or more day events might serve as fitness (re)training for a night event, rather than relying on a single 50-miler.

A trade-off between extra admin for organisers and more flexibility for entrants ?

Iain

Author: David Morgan
Posted: Tue 18th Apr 2017, 21:58
Joined: 1994
Local Group: South Wales
I can answer some of the issues (but not all) raised in this post.

Some years ago it was identified that the flagship event was in danger of being oversubscribed. In order to address that issue it was decided that a qualifying event would be required and the distance of 50 miles was set. This distance served a purpose (to a degree) and that was that most qualifying events would require the entrant to walk through a night. The purpose of this criterion was to ensure that entrants who had not walked this type of distance before would have some understanding of how they would cope with night navigation. So, two issues over subscription and inexperience) could be addressed with the decision to create this qualifying event.

The issue raised in the post also refers to the timeliness of when the event has to be completed within. The completion of the qualifying event is not designed to address the fitness of the entrant at the time of the 100 mile event. If it were, then a decision would be to have a 50 mile event in close proximity, something that is clearly not desirable. The reason that the time period is currently given is because there are few 50+ mile events in the challenge walking calendar, and therefore by having a longer time period, more people could obtain the qualification.

The observation on a two year qualifying period is valid, but there are sufficient (although more would be most helpful but rely on volunteers) events in the calendar at this time, so I would argue that this is not currently required. The UTMB approach is not something that I would wish to see introduced, and neither do I believe it has any relevance to our event. As above, the 50 mile event was created to provide would be entrants with the experience of walking through the night. 3 x 25 mile walks would not.
Who would manage this process? We have no paid employees so would rely upon volunteer/s to manage this process. The administration issues themselves would scupper this idea.

The qualifying events have to fit in with the criteria of the LDWA. This means that a maximum of 500 people can be allowed to enter and they must not be competitive. This means that some events that might have been considered previously are now no longer on the qualifying list.

The responsibility to interpret the criteria is that of the entries secretary. In 2014 I was the entries secretary and I fielded a host of weird, wonderful and downright cheeky requests to enter without a qualifying event. As soon as one enters an area of ambiguity, one opens oneself up to criticism and accusatory comments. That is why entries secretaries are likely to apply the criteria because this way everyone knows where they stand, entries secretary and entrant combined.

The counter argument to the qualifying 50 mile event of course is that how do you prove that an entrant has self-navigated on an event? How many times have you had someone walk with you who has relied on you to read the route description, use your map and compass to navigate at night (day sometimes too!)? So, this person latches on to you on a 50 mile qualifier? How have they proved that they are suitably qualified? In reality, all you rely on is that they completed a 50 mile event, so I am the first to accept that the process is far from perfect.

But, we are on occasion in danger of over subscription (but thankfully we have not been to date) and by having certain criteria, we have a way of monitoring who can be allowed to enter the event. And because the event only comes around once a year, I always feel for those who either cannot enter (work commitments) or are prevented from entering (injury) or having entered, fail to complete for whatever reason. It is highly frustrating to think that one will have to wait another year to have another crack at our wonderful event.

As a final observation; if walking 100 miles is the challenge as opposed to entering the LDWA 100, then there are several other opportunities that are organised by commercial providers. But, they’ll cost you and this is another reason why our event is as popular as it is.

David Morgan
100 Coordinator

Author: John Pennifold
Posted: Mon 17th Apr 2017, 16:39
Joined: 1996
Local Group: London
Thanks for your support, Iain.

Author: Iain Connell
Posted: Mon 17th Apr 2017, 14:13
Joined: 2010
Local Group: North Yorkshire
I think John has a point, several in fact, which the Kent 100 organisers might consider (but the rules for 100s may not be settable year on year, and may need to go 'higher'). The current lack of 50-mile qualifiers might also drive any revisions, though that in itself shouldn't be a decider.

"What is the purpose of having done a qualifier only in the last year? What exactly is being tested?"
I think the response would be that fitness may have declined significantly over a longer period. However, as you suggest, the entrant may have done several shorter events in the mean time, so that (e.g.) five 25-milers in 15 months, the last being three months ago, may be worth at least as much as a single 50-miler 10 months ago.

"This sort of approach is frequently found elsewhere in the walking/running word. For example the UTMB with their points system which need a minimum number of points totalled across a certain number of events. Their qualifying window is a much more practical 30 months."
A points system may work if based on events with minimum distances over a defined period (e.g. up to 16 months), but the admin involved will be higher.

"Why limit it to a single 50 miler?"
I'm sure that the 50-mile distance is there to ensure that the entrant will have done at least one overnight. Your recent 10Peaks Lakes experience might reasonably be considered sufficient, even though a mere(!) 47 miles. However, you will appreciate that the criteria for running-only events are likely to be different from those allowing a combination of running/walking, or just walking: one is that - unlike the UTMB - they're not "races".

"I doubt if there is any data to show that non-qualified participants fare less well than non-qualified ones."
I expect that the justification for any qualification system will be the risks involved in allowing non-qualified entrants to take part are too high. It may well have become apparent in the early years of Hundreds that there were too many people dropping out for reasons attributable to inadequate preparation and/or fitness and/or experience. (The South Wales 100's 50% of retirers, of which I was one, were due to extreme weather, and can be considered an exception.)

Good luck on the NYM 100.

Iain

Author: John Pennifold
Posted: Sun 16th Apr 2017, 22:35
Joined: 1996
Local Group: London
Can anybody tell me why the LDWA is so strict on qualifying events for the 100s?
What is the purpose of having done a qualifier only in the last year? What exactly is being tested?
I can imagine that some proof of night walking and navigation should be sought, but this experience, once gained, is virtually never lost. The only thing that might be worth checking is recent fitness and stamina.
The trouble is, with the required dates, there is really only a window of 10 months to gain a qualifier.
Why not set the qualifying period to be 2 years before the ballot date rather than just 10 months?
Why limit it to a single 50 miler? Why not one 50 miler or say, three 25 milers?
This sort of approach is frequently found elsewhere in the walking/running word. For example the UTMB with their points system which need a minimum number of points totalled across a certain number of events. Their qualifying window is a much more practical 30 months.
I don't know when this rule was added to the 100s but I doubt if there is any data to show that non-qualified participants fare less well than non-qualified ones. For example, on the South Wales 100, almost half of the participants failed to finish, but every one of them had qualified. So as far as I can see the current tight qualifying criteria doesn't really prove much.
I only just scaped into this year's North York Moors 100. I had to pull out of the Dorset 100 to help my friend who broke her coxxyx; luckily we were able to prove that we had done 52 miles at the point at which we retired and that's what got me into next month's event. My wife & I entered the 3 Rings of Shap as she wanted to qualify for the NYM 100, but unfortunately that was cancelled before the date. We also entered the Wenlock Olympian Walk but she was unwell on the weekend of the event and was unable to start, while I did manage to start but had to retire at 8 miles due to a (previously) pulled hamstring. I participated in the 10Peaks Lakes event which I finished in 23:54 (6 minutes inside the 24 hour cutoff) but at a mere 47 miles & 5,600 metres of ascent doesn't qualify me, despite navigating solo through the night and without a written route description or waymarking. Again, last weekend, my wife & I completed the Maamturks Challenge Walk in Ireland which involves starting in the dark but despite the rough terrain and no route description and 13 hours of walking, its 15 miles & 2,300 metres of ascent don't qualify us.
In the past 5 years, my wife has qualified on three separate occasions for 100s, but circumstances has prevented her from participating each time. She would like to attempt the NYM 100, there are spaces available but the rules says that she can't participate.
So do we really need such strict rules?

Author: Simon Pipe
Posted: Fri 7th Apr 2017, 15:22
Joined: 2006
Local Group: Heart of England
Good to see Tour de Trigs on there - 50 tough miles around Banbury, mostly in darkness, often over ploughed or very muddy fields, and no RD. Couldn't understand why it is not usually mentioned.

They require you to wear boots, though, and I'm not buying a pair just for one event.

S

Author: Michael Headley
Posted: Sat 11th Mar 2017, 22:04
Joined: 2008
Local Group: Kent
An updated list of Qualifying Events for our Cinque Ports Hundred in 2018 is
here
.

Author: David Wright
Posted: Sun 26th Feb 2017, 21:13
Joined: 2014
Local Group: Marches
Even volunteering to help on an event or two a year could be just what is needed. I don't think I could ever have the skills to put on an event but I can wash dishes and clean up. If that reduces the burden on people who DO have the determination and skill to run an event, they may just continue.
I'm a relative newcomer to my local group and I've still been keen to enjoy the events they run but my New Years resolution was to volunteer to help out first and only enter the event if its sure that I'm not needed. So long as there's a Marshalls walk, I can't lose?

Author: David J Hooper
Posted: Sat 25th Feb 2017, 14:54
Joined: 1987
Local Group: Cornwall & Devon
John have you ever thought of putting on and event? I think the only way to stem the loss of events is for more people to step up to the mark and put events on.

Author: Thomas Sellers
Posted: Tue 21st Feb 2017, 20:36
Joined: 2009
Local Group: Lakeland
Kent group have published a list of qualifying events for the 2018 hundred at https://www.ldwa.org.uk/lgt/downloads/Kent/cp100/CP100_qualifying_events.pdf - this shows five LDWA events (not counting the cancelled Wenlock Olympian Walk) plus several non-LDWA ones. There's also Round Rotherham in October which isn't on the list.

But we have lost two events (3 Rings of Shap and The Woldsman) and possibly a third with the Wenlock Olympian Walk, and gained one (Red Rose 50) in the last year.

Author: John Pennifold
Posted: Tue 21st Feb 2017, 16:10
Joined: 1996
Local Group: London
Upon checking for LDWA events which are still running and which count as a qualifier for a 100 (ignoring the 100 itself), I can only find four.
Is this correct? If so, shouldn't we be getting worried. At this rate there'll soon be none.