Thoughts on Barkley Marathons - Designed for Failure

Have to agree with Sage, as usual. Races can do whatever they want, but they often prefer to do it secretly. Hardrock hasn’t openly expressed their entry standards (if any!). Hardrock is a race, not a run, by the traditional standard of keeping times & awarding a prize for winning.

Barkley has always publicized its unusual entry format.

Kawika Spaulding told me his winning essay to get into Barkley described his DQ at Western States for smoking ? on the course, ha ha. Kawika smoked half a pack a day across the country in Trans Am. All are welcome IMO.

zszszs wrote:

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 exlusivity 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.

Dude, nobody asked if you intended to do Barkley. You are an insufferable narcissist,

He really isnt. Hes actually chill af

jesseriley wrote:

Kawika Spaulding told me his winning essay to get into Barkley described his DQ at Western States for smoking ? on the course, ha ha. Kawika smoked half a pack a day across the country in Trans Am.

That's amazing.

jesseriley wrote:

Have to agree with Sage, as usual. Races can do whatever they want, but they often prefer to do it secretly. Hardrock hasn’t openly expressed their entry standards (if any!).

Like Sage, I am uninterested in Barkley as a run/race, although I think the stories/lore are interesting and I'm glad it exists.

I also wish HR would have more women so as to provide a better race/run experience *for* women.

Otherwise, though, I bristle at Sage's take on the HR entry process and to what degree faster runners 'deserve' to get in...The biggest bottleneck is the limited number of entries (~145) with almost 20x as many people trying to get in. The beautiful part is the exponential ticket allocation, so a qualified entrant doubles their number of tickets each year. A dedicated person interested in running the race will get in if they keep applying. If all the veteran tickets were given to newbies, it would simply shift your expected entry date by a year....Again, the most reassuring part of the lottery is that it rewards those (on average) who keep trying to get in. This aspect is transparent and not a secret.

Sure, it's not as fast at the front of the race as it could be, but then again nobody ever decreed that as the sole metric of an interesting and useful event.

When it comes to Hardrock, I cannot understate how little myself and many other runners (or hopefuls) are particularly interested in how fast certain runners can or cannot run the race.

That would explain DQ’ing the fastest runner.

Technically, you should relegate to 2nd place a runner who is too fast.

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 exlusivity 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.

Let me say i always enjoy reading you.

As far as these selection processes you seem to understand as another form of elitism, i would like to say I view it myself as just a tradition of considering there are just other values than speed in the trail running community. There still needs to be some limits on the number of runners in a trail, ultra or not. I'm not doing ultras cause i'm not trained for them, and i'd rather do small local races organised by non profit organizations who give part of the entry fees / sponsorship money to charities, but i can tell you from direct experience that if you don't know how unpleasant it is to run in the back of a pack of 1000+ on a trail, that's because you probably are too fast and usually start from the front of the line. Nothing wrong with bigger and more competitive races for those who like them, but there is a place also for races or runs which give a chance to slower people to experience a trail race (i can assure you even us back-of-the-pack-ers are still racing each others and we have fun doing so) in good conditions.

So i have no intention to participate to Barkley's or Hard Rock, but still like the idea they have their own process of selection that is not based only on performances. I don't know if you would like to give hard rock a go, and if so i genuinely hope you'll get in soon. But i also want to think the non-elitist stance you mention from the trail running community is not entirely faked.

Not My Real Screen Name wrote:

Ohcanada wrote:

Surely had a better chance than most of finishing.

Based on what? OCR and Tough Mudder experience has never proven to be worth crap at Barkley. Sorry, but it hasn't.

How many champs have they allowed in?

So it sounds like the selection process is about like accepting 40 entries from a bunch of 22-25 minute 5k runners and giving them 20 minutes to do the course.

All distance runner wrote:

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

Try one.

Navigation seems to be the biggest factor after the actual endurance part. I think only 2 people have ever finished it on their first try. Most take 3 or more tries and keep progressing a lap each try. As far as fitness, it seems the people with the best chance are the result long distance guys on very difficult terrian. Past finishers have done things like John Muir Trail FKT, Nolan's 14, AT and PCT FKT, etc. 100 miles isn't going to get you to the point of exhaustion to prepare you to cope at 55 hours in like 200 milers will.

Also, 100% certain Killian would get in if he wanted....he just has not tried to my knowledge. Karen Sabble got in his first attempt after the AT FKT.

This is not really a race and hasn't ever been billed as such. It is a race against fatigue and sleep deprivation. Basically, can you still navigate and put out without any meaningful sleep for 2.5 days?

Someone mentioned Marines Recon guys. They wouldn't last one loop unless they only paced themselves to do one loop and not the whole race. It's not navigation and orienteering like you would think. Seriously, they would not finish one lap. However, I am pretty sure 2004 finisher Mike Tilden was a Navy SEAL (also the first Nolan's 14 finisher)...so go Navy.

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 exlusivity 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.

If only you were allowed to run Hardrock you would be advocating for the entire phenomenon big time. But, since you can't, you're gonna b..tch about it again and again. We know you good enough over here. BTW, I don't like the Hardrock shtick anyway.

Yeah....only top 50 at UTMB. No way he could do Hardrock, right?

Maybe raise the qulaity a bit wrote:

So it sounds like the selection process is about like accepting 40 entries from a bunch of 22-25 minute 5k runners and giving them 20 minutes to do the course.

Wrong.

Except for one, he selects the participants he thinks have the best chance to complete the course. Do you think any 1:05 or faster half marathoner has any interest in doing an event that will take almost 60 hours?

hj53 wrote:

Lane Meyer wrote:

I don't get the obsession with Barkley in the ultra community. To small of a sample size run this race for it to be given the accolades it does.

There's a movie about it that's why it is famous. Apparently people have a lot of free time on their hands to watch documentaries and read non-fiction. I don't get it personally, unlike text based social media that's hardly something one can do when distracted from doing his job.

Simply put, you are not capable of understanding Barkley. It's not about the race it's so much more. Killian has said he would love to try it but first had to get his summits project completed first. Marines and seals? Lol it spits them out.

It's spelled B-E-R-K-E-L-E-Y, morans.

SPARTA!!!! wrote:

All distance runner wrote:

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

Try one.

Im from the west where there is competition. There is none in new york. Western runners rarely go out there and when they do they annhilate the field.

All distance runner wrote:

Im from the west where there is competition. There is none in new york. Western runners rarely go out there and when they do they annhilate the field.

Makes sense that only the top left coast runners would travel that far to try their luck in the east.