"Theory is a fine thing but when you get in the field it all starts to fall apart."

Tell me about it...
one of my favourites is Geoff Bell's 'Armchair planning is one thing... actually doing it is rather different.'
In my post I'm just attempting to demonstrate that either their route is shorter or they are moving quicker or a combination of the two
cheers
lwm

Achieving a constant 3mph is not as simple as it sounds, as I have found when attempting to do that on my many Non Stoppers of up to 90 miles. As soon as those inevitable foot problems start to manifest, which is a dead cert with speed and mileage, the pace soon drops away. The legs speed falls as the muscles tighten after 40/50 miles, the stride shortens, and before long you are wondering why those last few miles took so long, when you felt as though you were walking as strong as you were, 20 miles earlier.
You only have to have the briefest of stops for the average to be severely affected - the difference between 3mph and 2.5mph is only 4 minutes a mile.
Shuffling along for short sections may bring the average pace up, but then that's not walking and this is my whole point.
Out of 50 super fit young guys (not too young though or they wouldn't have the Stamina) if they did shuffle or ran parts, then on paper, yes it is possible. But I would say with a high percentage of dropouts, not an 80% success rate, maybe just one or two making it.
Anyway that's what I think, for what it's worth.
Dave.

Just come across this, have alook and see hard it is for Fell Runners.
http://forum.fellrunner.org.uk/showthread.php?10360-Coast-to-Coast/page3
Dave.

As I say, these experiences are beyond my experience. However, without wishing to appear rude in any way whatsoever, you do appear, on the forum at least, to be ploughing something of a lone furrow in your disbelief.

I see that there has been a post which gives credit to the claim which makes me even more confused.

Fatigue wise, as in the link, I don't really see a problem. One morning in 1976 I was asked to attend the recently started fire on Kinder Scout. Along with the army, the search and rescue teams and various other groups we attended for 50 continue hours (8am Saturday until 10am Monday). Yes we were tired at the end ... its jolly hard work beating heather with long handled beaters... but the adrenaline just took over and we coped. These walkers have a further 15 hours which can be used for sleep within the 65 ... which we didn't have.

I just find it hard to credit that two separate groups fabricate the same story at different times.

Just reading this thread makes us weary!

In the equation of speed versus age we have reached the stage when we are getting slower (and rationalising it by claiming more photography and much gawping at the landscape) rather than looking for ways to get there faster. I doubt there was ever a time when we could match the times noted on the thread - perhaps our Southern Hemisphere legs are built differently!

Slogger.

No one has PMed me with any doubts since last night.

Participants are under no illusion about the nature of the event, hence the prerequisite to do a 100 hour crossing. It would be a brave man to deny that 40 fit service personnel operating in small units cannot accomplish this challenge in the allotted time.

I assume from the volume of posts you make about your own attempt that you desperately seek some form of recognition or praise. This you could get by completing your challenge and not denigrating others who also complete theirs

I repeat my offer. If anyone still has doubts PM me and I will try and elaborate.

1. Firstly I am not alone on this forum who have doubts about this, as per visible posts, posted.
2. I do not seek any praise from anyone as I know in my own mind my own achievements.
4. I have never denigrated anyone for their crossing no matter how long they have taken, I have always congratulated them for making it across.
3. My doubts, if you care to read my posts properly are not as to whether it could be done in 65 hours, but as to whether it could be wholly WALKED in a total time of 65 hours, which I still say is unlikely especially for such a large group.
Dave.

Slogger

Before I respond to your PM would you identify the parts of the posts which you suggest support your doubts. This will give the posters chance to express them personally and ensure that neither of us has misinterpreted them.

I have still not received any PMs other than yours.

If you mean quoting people on this forum, no, it's not my place to do that. You only have to read through a few posts and you can identify their doubts easily enough.
You seem keen for people to believe what you claim, so why not openly give details. Why the secrecy. The fact that you say the reason is that the event uses unofficial sites seems a weak excuse.
If you really are genuine and want to know why I bother to express my views on things like this, I will tell you openly on this forum.
The 5 day attempt on 'THE' C2C was brought to my attention by another forum member. He got me interested and I was inspired. His attempts were part running part walking.
A bad injury put paid to my running over three years ago, so I thought I would have a go at walking it instead. I did this last September.
Since this 5 Day attempt (not mine) has attracted more and more interest and subsequent posts, there has been an increasing number of posts regarding very fast times, such as it being done many times inside 60 hours, but always without any form of corroboration.
I accept that times like that are possible and have been achieved, but by RUNNERS, not WALKERS.
It seems to me that some times these posts are deliberately put out to undermine anyone attempting the 5 day crossing, simply because they are not capable and trying to make out that succeeding in such a crossing is nothing special.
I happen to think it is, however it is not what I believe are attacks on my own attempt that bothers me, I have a thick skin after 9 years in REs and a member of a Fell running club where banter is always plentiful, but the apparent undermining of another members ambitions, whom I happen to have the utmost respect for.
I understand it can be galling to have someone doubt your word, when you are telling the truth, so if you are bothered, why not clarify. If you don't want to, then, fair enough, end of the matter.
Dave.

No Slogger. I thought that there weren't any!