Andrew Drummond hikes all 4,000 footers in NH in 6 days unsupported...

This is awesome... 6 days, 48 4000fters in NH... unsupported.

wmur.com/escape-outside/mad…

Spent a day skiing Tux with Andrew last spring (or was it two now?) and the dude was an animal getting something like 10 laps in on the bowl/fields that day. Awesome accomplishment.

Read about this the other day, great accomplishment!

Unsupported being the key word. Truly awesome.

Insane....for anyone who's hiked a 4000 footer in New Hampshire you know these are not easy peaks. I'd love to see his route

Nick Votto wrote:Insane....for anyone who's hiked a 4000 footer in New Hampshire you know these are not easy peaks. I'd love to see his route

I think this details is the general route... says something like 250 miles with nearly 100,000 feet of elevation gain and loss.



http://sectionhiker.com/hiking-a-white-mountain-direttissima/

Wow I thought I was crazy for a sec there...read it is Andre Drummond, the NBA player...

Kevin Heckeler wrote:Unsupported being the key word. Truly awesome.

Actually there is some controversy about that. He was not strictly unsupported according to the FKT rules. He stashed batteries and hiked with others at times.

Eric Engberg wrote: Actually there is some controversy about that. He was not strictly unsupported according to the FKT rules. He stashed batteries and hiked with others at times.

I'm no nazi on this stuff but I would think that having a significant other hike with you just to be with you is different than a companion with a function like the example they gave such as a pacer. I mean I guess it could be emotional support they provide... And batteries... not sure how that really plays into it, they don't provide any support to your effort, more a drain...

Morgan Patterson wrote: I'm no nazi on this stuff but I would think that having a significant other hike with you just to be with you is different than a companion with a function like the example they gave such as a pacer. I mean I guess it could be emotional support they provide... And batteries... not sure how that really plays into it, they don't provide any support to your effort, more a drain...

look here:

vftt.org/forums/showthread.…

Eric Engberg wrote: look here: vftt.org/forums/showthread.…

Thnx good read... So basically someone running into you on the hike and saying 'You can do it, good luck," would constitute as moral support and would DQ an 'unsupported' claim on their website. That's BS... Someone coming along to purposefully help you in a material way make sense. What if he runs into an impromptu group of people cheering for him? What if they follow him for a mile or what if only 100 ft? By their definition that would DQ the effort.

And that chick A&A... she seems to be claiming her hike unsupported even though it was her and someone else that did it the whole way. That seems like more BS... unsupported could only be solo if they're playing by their rules. And I dont buy her argument that anyone hiking with you is pacer that provides support. That's absurd. If they were there for that intent or served that purpose then sure it make sense. It just seems like such a huge gray area.

Though I don't see why he didn't just take a portable solar panel along to charge the batteries. If he used those solely for the broadcast purposes that certainly wouldn't provide any support to his hike and was more a hindrance. If he used those batteries in his headlight then that would be supported.

End of the day the dude is a beast and had a huge accomplishment...

A&A just comes across as butt hurt.

All those AT hikers who eat the free handouts along the way are frauds. lol

-- edit -- Okay, after reading some of the VFTT thread a bit I see now the 'controversy'. To each their own. Hiking has stumbled into the formal competitive world of 'sport hiking'. Sad, because it's fun to just walk around outside.

Morgan Patterson wrote: And that chick A&A... she seems to be claiming her hike unsupported even though it was her and someone else that did it the whole way. That seems like more BS... unsupported could only be solo if they're playing by their rules.

I think there is Unsupported Solo and Unsupported Tandem (or more), what's at issue (for A&A) is the definition of support not the number of people involved. They want to make it clear that Unsupported means carry everything with you (except natural sources of water) and don't receive any outside assistance, even company for a few steps. It is certainly easier to do an Unsupported Tandem hike than it is to do an Unsupported Solo hike, they aren't disputing that (I don't think).

They even hint at the hiker avoiding hiking with random people to avoid support, but then they go on to acknowledge that it is almost impossible to do a Solo Unsupported hike of the 48 WM peaks in the summer because you are definitely going to run into other people.

I understand some of the points and it is hard because some people are getting sponsored by these endeavors so "rules" become kind of necessary (like in climbing).

Eric Engberg wrote: Actually there is some controversy about that. He was not strictly unsupported according to the FKT rules. He stashed batteries and hiked with others at times.

There are no rules, just a bunch made up shit so one can mouth masturbate about their so called record.

I have said for years that when someone does the first nude snowboard circumnavigation of the South Pole while singing God Save the Queen I will take notice until then it is a bunch of mouth masturbation. Of course now I'll have to make it the first unsupported nude snowboard circumnavigation of the South Pole while singing God Save the Queen.

Allen Sanderson wrote: There are no rules, just a bunch made up shit so one can mouth masturbate about their so called record. I have said for years that when someone does the first nude snowboard circumnavigation of the South Pole while singing God Save the Queen I will take notice until then it is a bunch of mouth masturbation. Of course now I'll have to make the first unsupported nude snowboard circumnavigation of the South Pole while singing God Save the Queen.

About the same level of BS as what constitutes on-sight, flash, redpoint, pinkpoint......

Joe M. wrote: I think there is Unsupported Solo and Unsupported Tandem (or more), what's at issue (for A&A) is the definition of support not the number of people involved.

That kinda my point though... if moral support counts as support than an unsupported hike with two people is impossible. And then solo what does that mean... not listening to or speaking to a single person on your entire trip?

How many ways are they going to slice the cake before its a pile of mush no one will want to eat?

And even then... picking up batteries (ADDING WEIGHT) would seem a burden not support (less he used them for support (ie headlamp)). I get that some like to nit pick the living shit outta accomplishements or do denigrate them because they weren't under their standard... we do it here all the time. End of the day Andrew crushed the record with no material support and while taking on additional burdens the others didn't endure.

I'm going to do all the 14ers in Florida. Guinness should be involved.

Eric Engberg wrote: About the same level of BS as what constitutes on-sight, flash, redpoint, pinkpoint......

Yes but we don't make distinctions about having 'moral support'. That seems to be new territory. How would rating go...

1: Ya I sent that new 15b...

2: Oh no shit... I heard you had support...

1: Um.. ya I had my crew there cheering me on...

2: Ah... well that ascent doesn't really count... you had help. It was an assisted ascent. Next time try to do it without any encouragement and then I will agree that you did the route by yourself.

1: You're being fucking obnoxious why am I even friends with you in the first place??

Morgan Patterson wrote: Yes but we don't make distinctions about having 'moral support'. That seems to be new territory. How would rating go... 1: Ya I sent that new 15b... 2: Oh no shit... I heard you had support... 1: Um.. ya I had my crew there cheering me on... 2: Ah... well that ascent doesn't really count... you had help. It was an assisted ascent. Next time try to do it without any encouragement and then I will agree that you did the route by yourself. 1: You're being fucking obnoxious why am I even friends with you in the first place??

The point is - as you demonstrate with this rant - is that anyone not intimately familiar with the sport will think that all the "rules" associated with it are ridiculously petty, arbitrary and hair splitting. But they will be vitally important to those that are involved
.

Off on a tangent - another analogy with climbing. There are a lot of people doing these speed hiking things who intentionally do NOT advertise it and have as faster or faster times as the recognized ones . Just like there are a lot of people doing FA's (in the trad arena) who intentionally do not record it - not on MP or anywhere.

Eric Engberg wrote: About the same level of BS as what constitutes on-sight, flash, redpoint, pinkpoint......

Exactly. Look at all the "firsts" on Everest these days. How many firsts were there this year??

Eric Engberg wrote: The point is - as you demonstrate with this rant - is that anyone not intimately familiar with the sport will think that all the "rules" associated with it are ridiculously petty, arbitrary and hair splitting. But they will be vitally important to those that are involved.

But they will be vitally important to those that are involved so that their record can't be broken.

Fix it for ya :-))).

Eric Engberg wrote: The point is - as you demonstrate with this rant - is that anyone not intimately familiar with the sport will think that all the "rules" associated with it are ridiculously petty, arbitrary and hair splitting. But they will be vitally important to those that are involved .

haha not a rant... a theoretical conversation between two climbers to demonstrate why moral support as a standard of an unsupported hike is silly especially when paired with climbing. And I understand and am familiar with the sport of hiking and as a philosophy major i get the need for distinctions and categories. My point is this is a BS standard/distinction.

So this would be a rant...Given the standard THEY provide, there's no such thing as a tandem unsupported hike so A&A doesnt hold an unsupported record as she claims. And in theory this standard can't reasonably be achieved in this competition as meeting anyone that says good luck or anything positive to you would be moral support to some degree or another. As such it's an invalid criteria.

The moral support standard was probably created by a looser with no friends who was jealous of the guy that had friends to say... go get 'em tiger! I can hear it now... you didnt beat my unsupported record, you had moral support. YA I have friends that came out to say good job and keep it up! Yup... you cheated I still hold the record.

The only flaw in your argument is that where does the line get drawn from "moral support" to "pacer"??? I think that is why they are saying, solo means solo, no one hiking along with you. In long distance endeavors, a pacer can be a big advantage, especially when you get to that just beat tired phase, to be able to put your head down and just follow someone is huge (cycling has separate time trial stages and races for this reason, plus the drafting advantage at the higher cycling speeds). There really isn't a climbing comparison to a pacer. I really think that you would still be considered solo if you talked to someone or someone gave you a "good job" along the way, but if you start hiking with someone, it could easily turn into a "pacing" scenario.