2021 Barkley Marathons - Official Thread

I haven't even been to that area in the US, but I'd imagine the dynamic weather combined with the brambles/mud and sheer amount of vertical (hills and fog all over not to mention some cold and nasty conditions) are all factors. Not mention having to gather those book pages and all the hoopla around that. It seems to be a "power hiking scavenger hunt" kind of event. Not even in the same vein as something like UTMB or Hardrock. "Extreme events" get people's attention though. Actually probably the only thing it has in common with a race like Hardrock is the exclusivity of it all and how basically the same people do it over and over again because of the politics involved. Actual competitive ultras like UTMB and Western States will allow top ranked runners to run their way in and compete. Other small niche events thrive on being exclusive much like a "good 'ol boys" club. And no I wouldn't ever want to do this kind of event and would probably be horrible at it. I'm sure its quite hard. If I'm going to freeze in the mud and get lost in the woods/brambles I'd rather not be in the backwoods of Tennessee but on a mountain by Mont Blanc instead at least!

former orienteer competitor and RD wrote:

FHlover wrote:

Orienteering is pretty useless. You need good land nav skills and to know that park really well. And to follow a veteran. That's how Jared finished as a virgin, that's how Courtney is hangin on right now. Only way to learn the course is to follow someone who knows.

~Barkley failure

Why do you say orienteering is useless? On attackpoint, orienteers who have competed in Barkleys say the navigation is easy for competent orienteering competitors:

"Barkley is definitely a running race with a defined course and course markings and you're told exactly where the books are. It's pretty easy to get around. Nav is about the level expected by a competent 14 year old :D"

https://www.attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/message_1431535#message1435977

You'd better lay off your late night booze dude.

runstrongandfree wrote:

masterofdisaster wrote:

You'd better lay off your late night booze dude.

100% agree. Not sure why Sage feels the need to slam Barkley Marathons. Not a good look, Sage. And maybe with the likes of John Kelly and Courtney Dauwalter and many other amazing athletes competing at BM, you might not look so good!

how are these two things related? wrote:

A better example - that Gary Robbins guy who almost finished 5 loops - he recently set a 10K PB of 34:47. Yup, that's his PB, and he trained for it. He's not even fast enough to run for a half way decent high school team. I'm not knocking the guy, I'm just saying Barkley's is not an event for runners. It's hiking, orienteering for 60 hours while staying awake for 3 days. Obviously very difficult and hellish, just not a running event.

John Fegyveresi was a mid-pack runner who finished Barkley's by nailing the navigation and mental toughness.

I 100% agree with Sage which is usual unless he talks about 24 hour racing.

elephino wrote:

John Fegyveresi was a mid-pack runner who finished Barkley's by nailing the navigation and mental toughness.

That performance convinced me that Fegy's mental strength is on a very, very rare level

I agree with him too - at least in the sense of not wanting to do the Barkley - but disagree with the attitude he takes. I've done some ultras (up to 100 miles), and like to think I'm fairly tough mentally, but I'll happily admit I'm not tough enough for the Barkley. I probably wouldn't even make one loop.

I mean, we all have our preferences. I prefer hard but non-technical courses that are easy to navigate and have clear rules and a definite distance. The Barkley is clearly not that. But that doesn't mean I have to get mad at The Barkley, or the people involved. In fact, I find the competitors really interesting, often admirable, and in some cases, incredible.

So I say, take it for what it is. Nobody's asking you to run it. I don't think it's causing any harm. I have a sneaking suspicion that some people subconsciously resent the Barkley because it is the rare race about which you can say that elite runners probably wouldn't dominate it if only they had the incentive (and were allowed in). I think it drives some people crazy to think that a 38-minute 10k guy or gal (or even slower) might just plain be, frankly, BETTER than them at something running-related. It upsets the running hierarchy, the rules for which state that whoever is faster at 1500/5000m gets to hypothetically extrapolate that superiority to all longer events up to and including transcontinental races, "if they trained for it".

S. Canaday wrote:

I haven't even been to that area in the US, but I'd imagine the dynamic weather combined with the brambles/mud and sheer amount of vertical (hills and fog all over not to mention some cold and nasty conditions) are all factors. Not mention having to gather those book pages and all the hoopla around that.

...

And no I wouldn't ever want to do this kind of event and would probably be horrible at it. I'm sure its quite hard. If I'm going to freeze in the mud and get lost in the woods/brambles I'd rather not be in the backwoods of Tennessee but on a mountain by Mont Blanc instead at least!

So much for "any surface, any distance" ???.

I may have been a little harsh. But I don't think I said anything that wasn't untrue and I was merely just stating it like it is.... No doubt Barkley is super tough and would be demanding physically and mentally. But any distance race is really tough if you try 100%. And I also agree a "traditional runner" would probably not do well there because it appears that it is mostly power hiking and there is a certain element of extreme sleep deprivation, gear utilization, and route finding off-trail that a "traditional runner" would likely struggle with. It also gets a lot of press (at least in the last several years) because like I said "extreme events" get more attention. So there is an interesting story there and effective (viral) marketing is all about telling intriguing stories. But I do find it ironic that there are certain niches of the "ultra-trail" community that pretend to be "inclusive and open and welcome to all", but then in reality they are all about events that are extremely "exclusive". That's why you get the same small crowd of runners each year and the RD can merely pick and choose who they let in a lot of the times. It's really similar with Hardrock as well: a very limited field size and who "gets in" is about "who knows who". That's why you see a lot of repeat runners. Now private events can do what they want of course (and people like me may say: " it's not our cup of tea" and mention that there are "politics involved" etc)....so I'm not sure what the issue here is? If you want to talk about making ultra-mountain-trail running and other endurance sports "more inclusive and more welcoming and more diverse" I'm all for that.

Who won the power-hike this year?

Did Lazarus introduce some new zany rules that tantalize our sterile track running conventions and push this race further into the halls of unique legendary status?

Or did some people get roused by sociopath with cunning marketing skills to perform a shrewd ask for his own amusement?

I don't know, but I know I'm so pumped to read an article about the event that is OH SO HARd that NO ONE CAN FINISH YET AGAIN, just to prove that as I ran 5K's faster than most of that field can, that I am a pathetic weak athlete cause I am unwilling to sign my soul over to some crazy man for 48 hours.

S. Canaday wrote:

But I do find it ironic that there are certain niches of the "ultra-trail" community that pretend to be "inclusive and open and welcome to all", but then in reality they are all about events that are extremely "exclusive". That's why you get the same small crowd of runners each year and the RD can merely pick and choose who they let in a lot of the times. It's really similar with Hardrock as well: a very limited field size and who "gets in" is about "who knows who". That's why you see a lot of repeat runners.

Great point.

From my observation the trail ultrarunning "community" is very elitist in a weird way. Western States and Hardrock are great examples of that.

On topic wrote:

That performance convinced me that Fegy's mental strength is on a very, very rare level

I mean you hear stories (read race reports) about what all finishers go thru the 5th loop, but Fegy, man, Fegy, I feel like just have really gone somewhere maybe even those guys didn't in order to finish.

I know he used to post on the boards, but don't think he has done so in a while.

But I do find it ironic that there are certain niches of the "ultra-trail" community that pretend to be "inclusive and open and welcome to all", but then in reality they are all about events that are extremely "exclusive". That's why you get the same small crowd of runners each year and the RD can merely pick and choose who they let in a lot of the times. It's really similar with Hardrock as well: a very limited field size and who "gets in" is about "who knows who". That's why you see a lot of repeat runners.

The problem with Barkley is that there are 40 entrants. Laz gets thousands and thousands of application. The only way to allot those slots is through reviewing the applications - a "Barkley lottery" would never work. Because of the uniqueness of the event, it has to be resume-based.

There are also plenty of people who don't get back in, so it's not always the same folks. But you have to remember this was a race started by Laz and his friends when it was just a bunch of locals running in the woods. It's always been a "family" type of event.

Western States is a bit different though. If you are fast enough you can run your way in with a “golden ticket”. Much like qualifying for the Olympic Trials or for UTMB with enough competitive ranked performances - and if you are not fast then at least the lottery is not “rigged “ and (eventually) you will be drawn on the lottery....it may take several years though and you have to earn it by merit (doing enough 100km and 100-mile races each year to stay eligible). But you are earning it through (hard work) merit and patience. The system and process is transparent. And I think that is more “fair” and “inclusive” for a trail-ultra event (even with very limited field sizes). So while Western States is fairly “exclusive”’ it is not even close to the level of a Barkley or Hardrock IMO.

Brushy Mountain miner wrote:

S. Canaday wrote:

But I do find it ironic that there are certain niches of the "ultra-trail" community that pretend to be "inclusive and open and welcome to all", but then in reality they are all about events that are extremely "exclusive". That's why you get the same small crowd of runners each year and the RD can merely pick and choose who they let in a lot of the times. It's really similar with Hardrock as well: a very limited field size and who "gets in" is about "who knows who". That's why you see a lot of repeat runners.

Great point.

From my observation the trail ultrarunning "community" is very elitist in a weird way. Western States and Hardrock are great examples of that.

I used to post comments like this, and Sage's comment about any race being hard if you just give enough effort. When I was 25.

A couple decades later, I've come to appreciate, a little more, the extraordinary mental toughness that has to come with an effort like even finishing the Barkley fun run or (God forbid) the whole 100. Certainly I have felt more sheer physical pain from running an all-out shorter race, but I've never felt as mentally anguished as I have in longer races where I've been completely spent dozens of miles from the finish. And I've never spent 40, 50, or 60 hours on a course like Barkley. I don't care if it's a exclusive buddy club that has issues with a cult of personality (which of course it does). It's still okay to appreciate these athletes for what they're doing, even if they don't go out and run a 32-minute 10km or a 15-minute 5km.

Dont get me wrong...I appreciate the effort and what athletes are doing in these “extreme events”. And there are certainly more variables that can go exponentially wrong in a longer duration event. That is just basic science and data/stats. I’ve personally suffered greatly at Western States and UTMB and run very poorly in those 100-milers. But I’ve felt more pain in a 10km for sure . The most competitive race I’ve run by far has been NCAA D1 cross country. I’m not going to pretend that an ultra distance race is “harder” or “more mental” just because its longer. So I’m not impressed by just distance or duration and I don’t think there is anything “superhuman” about it. I think people aren’t able to reach their full potential in longer events because they can’t dial in their pace as well though and because they don’t have as many chances to race ultra long events (compared to shorter events). Sure you bonk and stuff hurts and mentally its a struggle...thats par for the course. Running a high level 10km is just as much of a “mental struggle”...the pressure cooker environment of burning 25 laps on a 400m track with nowhere to hide.... So to say that these ultra powerking athletes are “mentally tougher” is just ridiculous IMO. Its a very small sample size. It takes just as much “mental toughness” to run your best 10km or marathon if you are really pushing yourself to your full potential . I don’t care if you are running a 50-min 10km or a 29 min 10km.... its trying to really reach full potential that counts. Most people dont even come close to that probably. Is a marathon on the roads “harder” than a 10km? Not in my mind. Are ultramarathons “harder” than marathons? I don’t think so. You get to run slower and walk and eat more! Its all hard...so how about you respect the speed over distance and not just the sheer distance/duration? Thats also not really the point of my previous posts though anyway.

FHlover wrote:

The problem with Barkley is that there are 40 entrants. Laz gets thousands and thousands of application. The only way to allot those slots is through reviewing the applications - a "Barkley lottery" would never work. Because of the uniqueness of the event, it has to be resume-based.

There are also plenty of people who don't get back in, so it's not always the same folks. But you have to remember this was a race started by Laz and his friends when it was just a bunch of locals running in the woods. It's always been a "family" type of event.

Very good point. With such a small field, and a level of interest in participation that significantly exceeds the number of slots available, of course the selection process is going to be somewhat random, or "unfair".

Western States may seem more fair, but that's just a function of the fact that with 400 slots each year (or whatever the # is), and the size of the ultrarunning community being what it is, it happens to work out that if you're a pretty good runner over the course of a few years, you'll be able to get in. If, on the other hand, there were literally millions of competitive ultrarunners in the US who wanted to run WS100, and there were still only the 400 slots, the perception of it being inclusive and open to anybody willing to make the appropriate effort would vanish.

I'd have to agree with Sage alot here. John Kelly tweeted that mental toughness alone isn't going to finish Barkley. I also think as a 'phrase' it is completely over stated as a variable. Most people to who enter these races and are actually there to race will have it.

I'd also ask what takes more 'mental toughness' to train for? Lovely 8hr run/hikes in the mountains and beautiful scenery and snacks, or continuous big mile weeks of flat industrial estates, tracks and river paths.