Thoughts on Barkley Marathons - Designed for Failure

100 miles in 60 hours. How hard can that be?

I think this is an overrated event.

learn your stuff wrote:

He doesnt "invite" anyone, you have to apply and its a nightmare to even try to apply. It's a very niche event and those elite runners dont want to enter and he doesnt want them there. As for designed for failure I think thats just not true because fairly qualified ultrarunners go each year and get their asses kicked.

It seems that no sponsored elite runner would ever go because theres no prize money and it the build up and everything would just be lost money and fitness that they could be used for running in paying races. The people who run the race, run it because they truly want to

1. Most 100s have no prize money

2. They are not the best by any means

3. Yes you apply and then get invited based on his decision. That is called invite.

Learn YOUR stuff

Ohcanada wrote:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BvsAJxThxGI/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=9suktazsu465

Maybe there is some merit to this. Check out this guys bio who was not granted entry. Surely had a better chance than most of finishing.

Have you not watched the documentary? Every year Laz intentionally selects at least 1 person who "...has no business out there."

S. Canaday wrote:

it is a pretty exclusive event that is hard to get into...kinda like Hardrock. This is actually ironic because the ultra-trail running community likes to say they are "opening and welcome to all" but there is a certain element of "elitism" and exclusivity in some circles for sure.

And no, I have no desire to do Barkleys...I'd probably get lost and freeze on the first loop. Doing a scavenger hunt power-hike in the mud/brambles off-trail in remote Tennessee is not my cup of tea. I'm sure it's really hard though.

Sage, with due respect, I don't see you applying to Barkley anytime soon. It's no secret it's not in your wheelhouse, and I truly say that with all respect, and it seems you don't have a good handle on the race. I do appreciate your input in general when you're in position to opine and offer insight (that's often). I don't think this is such a situation. Ultimately, definitely not all, but most people with strong credentials to indicate serious potential for some sort of success get in. This year provides an excellent case in point, Karel Sabbe and Greig Hamilton - both of whom have no prior ties to Laz or any of Laz's races, and are the two who advanced the farthest this year. If you're not familiar with their resumes, you're not digging deep enough. But as you well know, the world is deeper that what ultrasignup may show. I assure you (and Laz has said this), if Kilian (and I assume his ilk) wanted in, he'd have no issue gaining entry.

As far as elitism goes, you make a fair point, but it's worth nothing that Hardrock insists it's not a race, it's a run. Clearly with the field limits, that's really what it is. Some odd year may result in it being more of a race. Fans of the race are the ones who hype it to be more of a race than it is. In trying to protect the nature of the event, some limits need to be made, including having a strong presence of veterans of the race.

Part of the shtick of Barkley (syntactical correction, no "S") is it makes no claims to be anything more than any other race, and is intended to be in part a satirical race of exclusive races (pick your desert stage race of choice, Badwater, etc which all cost an exorbitant sum). They just trash talk the entrants. The "media" are the ones to hype it (rightfully and at perhaps at times, otherwise).

None of these races are competitive. Doesnt count. Put him in the Western States fire and watch him barely break 24

https://ultrasignup.com/results_participant.aspx?fname=Ryan&lname=Atkins

It is gimmicky. And Laz should not be promoting smoking. It is not healthy.

SteelTownRunner wrote:

In trying to protect the nature of the event, some limits need to be made, including having a strong presence of veterans of the race.

In regards to Hardrock this makes no sense (except to keep the benefits of entry and participation to the veterans). Yes, people who do the event should have to have the ability to be more self sufficient for 100-miles in the mountains (if there is a safety issue concern)- yet the "lottery" (where veterans get more tickets and higher chance of racing year after year) ensures that less newbies (And women in general for that matter) will never get in.

That is all fine and we can have these elusive "runs" and "orienteering events" (it's probably good they don't call them actual "races" then), but don't go saying that they pulled the most competitive depth or that it is a super competitive, hard event. Hardrock this year will have a few faster runners than normal (likely due to "Dales' secretive picks"), but it is not even close to something like a UTMB or Comrades or even TNF50 San Fran with competitive depth. In those latter races if you are highly ranked, fast ultra runner you can usually enter....not as many loopholes or archaic entry systems or favoritism. Same thing with mountain-racing in Europe and the Golden Trail Series...if you have the ITRA score (based on head to head race performances) then you are in. These trail-ultra events like Hardrock and Barkley seem to have more elitism in them than road marathons (where at least if you are a sub 2:20 guy you can pretty much get into any marathon major on any given year if you apply early enough). With Hardrock and Barkley it seems as though it not about have fast you've run or how good of a competitor you are...it is about who you know.

The "politics" and the exclusivity of niche events like Barkley and Hardrock seem to make them run more like a "good ol' boys club" or frats...which is fine, but they have more in common with private club runs than with actual races that are open to fast-competitive runners (not that there is much running going on at Barkley anyway).

People are ignorant. Ultrarunners aren't making money off prize money. The top athletes have salaried contracts and likely have a bonus if they finish Barkley (next to impossible anyways). It's not always about making money. It's the attention and hype the event creates for an athlete. Learn your stuff.

Thanks to all for their comments. In my own experience, letting in “anyone” results in a better race, but actually lessens its reputation, since it will appear that “anyone” can do it. That’s how people are, I guess. And generally a director can allow any entry s/he wants. Even the Tour de France has wildcard teams.

A bunch of them tried in the easier early years, and none of them completed a single lap.

tarckstar wrote: and invited logical people instead of whack-jobs and guys who think it's an ultramarathon, this is a non-issue.

You have to write an essay and take a written test to get in.

zzzz wrote:

down to one and a miracle....... wrote:

Karrel Sabbe is the only one left in the race now.

Current fkt holder on the Appalachian trail (supported)

And LR poster, probably live's in mom's basement ;).

Belgian dentist.

I think one aspect of Hard Rock that is good about the lottery is the interest in 'protecting' or nurturing the community. Most of these types of races are put on by a small group of people relying on a lot of volunteer effort. The difference in Europe such as you brought up is many of those races are put on by actual organizations and there is more of a commercial feel to those races. I think the community aspect is important, not only because that is a huge part of what makes them great events but also to help foster that spirit among the new comers.

That said, I think Hard Rock needs to chop down how many veterans to let in and instead of just having a few elite picks follow WSER lead with golden tickets or having a set amount of spots open to elite athletes. Regardless of them calling it run it has grown beyond what it began as and ultra running has as well. They need to keep with the times. Part of the issue is with having what is essentially a publicly funded event (in the sense it is taking place on public lands maintained with tax money) but making it near impossible for anyone 'not in the Hard Rock family' to gain entrance.

Needledik wrote: I want to see one of these so called elite female runners take a stab and finish even one lap. Elite females....hahaahahaa...

Sue Johnston completed three laps (the "fun run") in 2001:

It makes a certain amount of sense that [Sue] Johnston would be the first person to complete this latest challenge. She’s been hiking and running long distances for 25 years. She won the competitive JFK 50-miler in 1999, and first female at the Hardrock 100 Mile Endurance run in 2000 and 2005. In 2001 she completed 66 of the 100 miles at Tennessee’s brutal Barkley Marathons, a women’s record that still stands today.

I wonder if ultra runners feel the same way when asked if they done Barkelys like when 1500-10k runners are asked if they have done a marathon?

Your not a real runner wrote:

I wonder if ultra runners feel the same way when asked if they done Barkelys like when 1500-10k runners are asked if they have done a marathon?

Not really. When I ran the 1500 in college all I wanted to do was run the marathon.

Charlesvdw wrote:

zzzz wrote:

And LR poster, probably live's in mom's basement ;).

Belgian dentist.

I know that. But he still might live in his mom's basement ;).

Since you could easily hike faster than a couple miles per hour even with all that vertical, this race must be that difficult precisely because you have to find the books in the right order and there are no markings to tell and so most just get lost for much of the time. Those who just miss finishing and so forth or go the wrong route are disqualified. In other words, it's not a running race at all. You'll actually see a lot of dq's at other trail races, however. I recall a Vermont 100 miler in which there were multiple dq's or possible dq's because of either mess-ups with the weigh-in, no fault of the athletes, or just going off course because of a lack of markers.

jesseriley wrote:

Thanks to all for their comments. In my own experience, letting in “anyone” results in a better race, but actually lessens its reputation, since it will appear that “anyone” can do it. That’s how people are, I guess. And generally a director can allow any entry s/he wants. Even the Tour de France has wildcard teams.

Sounds more like something written by a taker, not a giver.

Race volunteers are precious commodities, because many (even most) runners are just takers, and do not contribute to helping put races on at all. They pay a few bucks, then expect lots of attention and aid, and complain when they don't get enough, but they don't help provide it at all.

This attitude of "take and not give" is a problem for the actual running community, but generally not for the expensive and for-profit world of big races.