Follow up on Knots Claim

[MuddyWaters]

He knows if he did it or not. It matters not what some physicist who runs a website thinks. And you are after all, Just Bill. :-)

Didnt the Outside article say he admitted to giving others his credit card to buy supplies for him?

Not a smart move for a self supported fkt attempt if true . Only place I read this, but I havent really paid much attention. If he believed he could make overall fkt, i can see doing this.
It very much matters what others think. That is only reason anyone publicizes their hike details at all.

[One Half]

Didnt the Outside article say he admitted to giving others his credit card to buy supplies for him?

Not a smart move for a self supported fkt attempt if true . Only place I read this, but I havent really paid much attention. If he believed he could make overall fkt, i can see doing this.
It very much matters what others think. That is only reason anyone publicizes their hike details at all.

He also admitted it in his "trip report" submitted for "verifying" his claim of an FKT. Yes, I read the whole thing linked to by Just Bill. If I found it absolutely mesmerizing does that make me a nerd? Whats the equivalent of a nerd in the hiking world?

[ScareBear]

He also admitted it in his "trip report" submitted for "verifying" his claim of an FKT. Yes, I read the whole thing linked to by Just Bill. If I found it absolutely mesmerizing does that make me a nerd? Whats the equivalent of a nerd in the hiking world?

So, if Dan's SPOT's batteries went dead and he gave his credit card to somebody at a crossing or trailhead and that somebody went into town while Dan either stayed and rested or continued forward and that somebody then returned and brought Dan batteries, that is the definition of a supported FKT, not a self-supported FKT. It's the same as if Dan got a ride to and from town to buy the batteries. No bueno. And, if you are REALLY SERIOUSLY TRYING to break the self-supported FKT, you would have instantly realized that you just screwed the pooch. Kudos for Dan for admitting it. Or, perhaps, that admission wasn't intentional and Dan didn't fully grasp what a self-supported hike was? Nah. The whole going dark for so long because of "battery issues" and not doing hardly a damn thing to document your progress in the known absence of your SPOT is why, to me, the claim isn't credible. Saying "not verifiable" is merely a scientific/legal way of saying JB can't confirm the claim based on the evidence. Saying the claim isn't credible, as I believe, means that not only can't the claim be confirmed based on evidence, but that the "evidence" is so...unbelievably lacking in detail at very crucial and lengthy stages and the explanation so unbelievable as to cause the claim to be wholly disregarded. Not "un-verifiable" but more "un-reasonable" or "un-believable". Not an outright fabrication of stuff, like Ninja. But so much unreasonable behavior in light of the attempt as to make the claim unbelievable. Because, really, who in their right mind does this? Phone dead? SPOT dead? Don't bother to take detailed trip notes/report? When you do submit your notes, you can't get it right? Come on....it's simply too much. And too little. And that's the problem. The claim just isn't credible based on the verifiable facts.

[chknfngrs]

FKT notsomuch but much respect for doing a calendar triple crown if it comes to that. Amazing feat

[Just Bill]

Didnt the Outside article say he admitted to giving others his credit card to buy supplies for him?

Not a smart move for a self supported fkt attempt if true . Only place I read this, but I havent really paid much attention. If he believed he could make overall fkt, i can see doing this.
It very much matters what others think. That is only reason anyone publicizes their hike details at all.

He also admitted it in his "trip report" submitted for "verifying" his claim of an FKT. Yes, I read the whole thing linked to by Just Bill. If I found it absolutely mesmerizing does that make me a nerd? Whats the equivalent of a nerd in the hiking world?

The equivalent of a nerd in the hiking world is a backpacker.

So, if Dan's SPOT's batteries went dead and he gave his credit card to somebody at a crossing or trailhead and that somebody went into town while Dan either stayed and rested or continued forward and that somebody then returned and brought Dan batteries, that is the definition of a supported FKT, not a self-supported FKT. It's the same as if Dan got a ride to and from town to buy the batteries. No bueno.

Well that took longer than I thought.

So community discussion time.

In writing on Day 24 of his trip Dan admitted to sending a hiker roughly 2.x miles off trail to a Wallyworld to buy LI batteries.
It sounds like it may have happened more than once based upon the outside article- but since we have at least one in his own words then we can simply discuss that and not speculate.

So there are two discussions here:
1- Does sending another hiker to obtain supplies for you violate the self-supported guidelines?
Follow up to that given this specific FKT (not general FKT rules) Does this violate the specific guidelines put in place by Kirk and Anderson (pioneer and current overall) specifically?

2-Here is the trickier one; General rules, Thru-hiker style, and Specific FKT's. Which one counts?
This is the crux of a running debate... and also a key source for part of the ongoing issues.

Thru-hiker style-Here are the general rules from Peter's site: http://fastestknowntime.proboards.co.../19/read-first[*]Self-supported means that you don't carry everything you need from the start, but you don't have dedicated, pre-arranged people helping you. This is commonly done a couple different ways: You might put out stashes of supplies for yourself prior to the trip, or you might just use what's out there, such as stores, begging from other trail users, etc. Long distance backpackers are typically self-supported, since they resupply by mail drop or in stores.

These guidelines have generally been referred to as 'thru-hiker style'. Essentially little different than how a typical thru might hike the trail, but a bit ambiguous on some things many purists would consider cheating by those standards. Blue blazes and any cutting of the official trail are really the only requirement. But hitching is allowed, so is caching food or supplies. In theory you could also slack-pack as that is very much in keeping with Doyle's style of traversing the trail. Since you are allowed to enter vehicles, really there are no limits to what types of support you could employ, no limits on trail magic, or any real rules.
So long as you maintain a continuous line of footprints from start to finish you have mainly met the requirements.

Doyle put up the first endurance hikes in 1973, using a combination of vehicle support and thru-hiker style. He hiked large sections of the trail, but also had a vehicle assist him for large portions.
Ward Leonard put up the first thru-hiker style FKT without pre-arranged support using thru-hiker style. We were unsure for a time but both Warren and others have confirmed that Leonard hitched.
Ward's 60.5 day hike was in 1990, Liz 'Snorkel' Thomas hiked in 2011 following thru-hiker style.

Those records would all fall under the general lump of 'thru-hiker style'.

Meanwhile out west....

The Williamson standard-
Scott 'bink' Williamson began pushing the limits on the PCT in 2007 with his first hike with Joe 'Tatu Joe' Kisner. He began to refine his style and guidelines with partners and finally solo.
The first outline I know of was posted on Peter's site in 2011:
Scott Williamson AKA "Bink" here. Just wanted to put word out that I will be attempting to break the overall speed record for a single continuous hike/run on the 2655 mile Pacific crest trail. As you may know Adam Bradley AKA "Krudmeister" and I co-hold the current record of 65d, 9h, 58m set in 2009. My intention is to do it in the same style that Adam and I did in 2009, that is what we call "unassisted" or "self-supported". This means I will NOT have anyone following, or otherwise meeting me in prearranged manner to give me support. I plan to do this hike as Adam and I did in 2009 as a backpacker, carrying all of my food, equipment, and water between resupply towns, which I will walk into and out to pick up prepacked and mailed food boxes or phurchasing food, in these towns. As with Adam and I in 2009 I will not be getting in a vehicle for any reason during this attempt, if I do it means the attempt is off. I will be following the official PCT route, no detours, road walks or alternates of any kind. For me the style of this undertaking is more important than breaking the record itself.

*Note- I bolded the text out, Scott has emphasized this point many times and I believe those who followed him and cherish these FKT's tend to agree with this statement above all.

Matt Kirk cleaned up and bullet pointed Scott's standard into a bit better format and cleaner presentation https://sub60.wikispaces.com/About

"Self-supported" guidelines followed (Mostly adapted from the writing of Scott "Bink" Williamson):

Walk into and out of resupply towns to purchase or pick up prepacked and mailed supplies.

Hike as a backpacker, carrying all food and equipment between resupply towns.

Follow the official AT route, no detours, road walks or alternates of any kind.

Do not have anyone follow, or provide support in a prearranged manner.

Do not get into a vehicle for any reason during the attempt.

Honestly and thoroughly document the attempt.

Practice Leave-No-Trace ethics.

So roughly 10 years ago, Williamson refined the more open thru-hiker standard into what many agree is a tighter, cleaner standard.
He used that standard to set not only the Self-supported FKT, but also to best Horton's time and set the overall fastest known time on the PCT.
Heather Anderson then adopted and repeated the Williamson Standard when she bested Williamson's time.
Matt Kirk adopted and established that standard on the Appalachian trail in 2013 when he pioneered the first documented self supported FKT on the Appalachian Trail.
Heather Anderson then bested Matt's time using the Williamson standard and following Matt's rules (with one notable exception).

The Williamson Standard has been used several significant long distance self-supported FKT attempts - both successful and unsucessful. Including the Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Long Trail, and others.
So in my opinion at least this is a proven standard, repeatable, and better suited to modern FKT's.

Adopting that standard is not disrespectful of previous hikes or precedent, but only serves to further refine and protect the integrity of each of those FKT's.

So here's the debate-And why folks like Dan have some legitimate points to argue.
Doyle continues to advocate for thru-hiker style. Peter is the record keeper, not the judge. So he would like the community at large to define these hikes.

Here is a simple real world example:
Ninja 'got in a vehicle' several times during her attempt. I found or was sent several photos of various trail angels assisting her during the hike in this manner.
In my opinion- we were done... She was attempting to claim the FKT held by Anderson, who followed the Williamson standard of not entering a car for any reason.
Per thru-hiker style- we are not done. She hitched- not an issue- please continue entertaining this hike.

A consensus was finally reached when a witness stepped forward to prove she was found to have left the trail in a car and did not return to the same spot. (Yellow blazing).
This violated both sets of rules and a DQ was issued. But somebody almost got away with claiming a record. Almost got away with stripping the record Karl just earned.

Another real world example:
Joey Camps hurts his foot on his first AT FKT attempt. He calls his father, his father gives him a ride to the hospital.
Joey returns to the trail, and bests the current FKT by one day- but he is disqualified and cannot hold the FKT.
For those of us following the Williamson Standard- he got in a vehicle. Sucks, we love you brother... but no FKT.
For those following the thru-hiker style- Sucks, you called for support when you requested your dad pick you up, no FKT.

The current example:
Peter wanted Dan's battery issues to be open for debate. So that is how the review was presented.
Does it violate thru-hiker style? Debatable.
Does it violate the Williamson standards- For sure.

When somebody like Dan, or Kathryn Jones, or even Kaiha says that the rules are murky. They are correct.

This is my opinion- an editorial if you like.

Peter oversees all the FKT's. Across multiple sports, genres, and specialty athletes who are both professionals and amateurs. He has to deal with loud mouth jackholes like me and all kinds of yahoos.
Issuing blanket statements that apply to all those groups is not fair. It doesn't honor the individual trails or those who pioneered them. As a result he doesn't wish to take a direct or hard position on any single FKT as some folks (good or bad intentions) can then twist or apply his 'ruling' as they see fit to other FKTs.

For the most part- the long distance hiking trails have seen few scandals, and to be blunt- take up a small little corner in the overall FKT world. Really there has only been a dozen or so that garnered any attention at all.
But it is growing... and doing so on several of the most iconic trails on the planet. And getting in the face of people outside the FKT world.

Thru-hiker style is too ambiguous. It has too much wiggle room, it's too hard to verify, and more importantly- nearly every current FKT has been set with a stricter standard.
I respect Mr. Doyle very much. I respect Ward. But things evolve and improve. We are past handshakes at the trail head and two dozen people who know each other.

Earlier this season, we all reached out to Kathryn Jones to encourage her to start the trail over after hitching. That if she was chasing Heather's time, we felt she had already violated the rules.
This was a complete shock to her. Despite claiming to have looked into her hike, Kathryn remained ignorant of the basic guidelines she followed. That's too bad, but it's also too bad that a well meaning person could not easily determine what the rules actually are. For good or bad; Kathryn chose to leave the trail before it became an issue. However it was clearly still a sore spot in her final video shared regarding her hike.
Kathryn was clearly in violation of the rules put forth on the FKT she meant to claim.

She didn't head out hoping to set a NEW FKT, she set out the claim Anish's FKT.

Mr. Doyle commented on her video and informed her that she was not in violation of his style.
That can certainly be frustrating to people attempting these hikes when one group says you are DQ, one does not. That's a pretty crappy way to treat a fellow hiker overall in my opinion.

This issue is why Ninja and Dan both claimed ignorance, or not to have violated any "rules." Or even screamed out that there were no rules.

I don't want to rewrite the entire world of FKT's- but I would like to implement a simple solution and set of rules.
The goal is to be inclusive of all, not to cheat people or trick them into failure. The goal is also to preserve the integrity of the FKT, honor those who currently hold it and to properly document the proof.

I'd like to see the Williamson standard adopted to cover all Self-supported FKT attempts on Long Distance Backpacking trails.

Two exceptions to note-
If a trail (like perhaps the John Muir Trail) has it's own long standing traditions then those should be respected and adopted for that specific FKT.
I cannot think of an example; but if there is a further conflict with the Williamson standard and the existing history of a trail then it should be addressed prior to the attempt. Not after.


If a trail (like the Long Trail or Colorado Trail) can be done truly unsupported- this standard would not conflict with that one as self-supported and unsupported are two separate records.
This standard would only apply to the self-supported FKT, the unsupported would remain untouched. But to be blunt- both Pepper and John Z. followed a version of the Williamson standard anyway.


As mentioned-
Most of the big hiking trails with self-supported or unsupported FKT's established already follow this standard.

To Doyle's point- Not getting in a vehicle for any reason wipes all kinds of shady, sketchy, or flat out dishonest behavior off the table. Unfortunately we have some dishonest people out there.
To Peter's point- it's still a free country, people are still free to set any FKT they want.
However I think for the sake of simplicity, respect for current holders, and just plain old common sense: we should strongly discourage folks from veering from the established FKT on a given trail.
Why even bother getting them into trouble or grey areas when loud mouth jerks like me are going to point out that a stricter standard should apply?

All of the people mentioned from recent years set out to claim an existing FKT, not establish a new one. They all said- 'I plan to beat Anish'. It should be simple enough to agree that even if you didn't know about them; these are the guidelines used by the current holder of the record you are attempting to claim and you will be held to those standards.

The notable exception.
Heather left one glaring and unfortunate line off her guidelines when she went after Matt's FKT.
Honestly and thoroughly document the attempt.

I don't bring that up as a reason to retroactively review anyone's claim. It's pretty simple. Heather messed up, big time. **** happens- let's move on.

Unfortunately we have had several attempts and at least two folks claiming an FKT say, 'I did as much as Anish did. Why don't I get an FKT'.

It's a very fair question. I think there is a very simple answer.
The only thing missing from the Williamson standard is how to address how to publicly share your hike without compromising your current location or personal security.
For the most part we have already addressed that.

So- I say we flush out the Williamson Standard into a cleaner format and include delayed posting issues.
I say we also establish a standard of acceptable forms of documentation- brief, simple, non complicated.
A brief paragraph explaining that until your documentation is publicly presented for review by the community at large you cannot claim an FKT.
You can claim a fast trip- but until you prove it- that's all it is.

Two pages. Simple clean.

Any former, current, or interested FKT holders can look it over and sign off. Not every loud mouth like me- but the folks who hold these.
ONLY APPLIES TO SELF SUPPORTED FKT's on long distance hiking trails.
Not looking to change the world but it's safe to say these efforts have more than enough in common and will be attempted by the same general group of people that a single rule set could apply.
It's unfair to those who hold them, unfair to those who attempt them.
It's not any fun to disqualify people. It's quite fun to celebrate legitimate achievements.

I like FKT's because they are technically impossible. To be the fastest human to ever exist in the universe... not on a track, or in a machine, but on a trail through the woods.
As Carl Sagan, brilliant dreamer and rooted scientist, popularized; "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

FKT's are minor miracles. What makes them even more inspirational is that they can be documented, shared and proven.

Let's clean this up...
Right now two average Joe's are battling injuries and hardships in self funded, self supported journey's. A human, a pack, and a trail through the woods.
Each has a high potential to match or best the time set by one of the most highly decorated endurance athletes of all time, with full crew support, sponsorship, and a lifetime of experience.

Each is raising the bar of not only the clock, but of documentation, transparency, honor, and integrity.

How amazing is that?

[RuthN]

Perhaps of interest: https://thetrek.co/appalachian-trail...de/?ref=slider

[pbakwin]

Good, clear summary Bill. When Williamson posted those standards for the PCT, I was stunned by how little extra walking was required on that trail to hold to them - I think it was something like less than 10 miles for the whole 2700 mile trail! Obviously the AT is similar. I've wondered if there aren't routes where the standard of not getting in a vehicle is overly onerous. The CDT perhaps? I really appreciate Williamson's comment that stylistic purity is more important to him than the FKT. I've noticed that "style" is sort of like art: to some people what makes good style is just obvious, and other people simply don't get it. I remember the guy who was doing an unsupported route in the Whites and wanted to cache batteries for his electronics, arguing that the electronics were only for social media, and therefore not central to the effort. I guess Dan knew sending that guy to WalMart was a fudge, but likely by that time he was so frustrated about the Spot situation that he just went ahead and did it. Good on him for coming clean about it. I suppose I need to be more clear about these stylistic nuances on my site. But, what we don't want is people setting arbitrary standards and then "requiring" others to stick to them.

[Just Bill]

I still remind myself of the point you've made about (Paul Pomeroy?) and his vow of silence on the CT, lol.
Guess that's the point I'm trying to revisit on Williamson's standard... it's not proven onerous or exclusive to repeat for others over a decade or so of use on multiple trails.
As discussed- GPS is more challenging to use on the AT than western trails, but still can be done.

I like Joey Camps because his first time through he did just show up and go for it. I don't want to totally shoot that spirit of adventure down... but moving forward its not fair to have so many open questions either.
That's three or more folks (I noticed Jo-Dietz mentioned caching supplies if she tried again) that are not clearly not understanding a fairly simple set of guidelines for this specific FKT.
It also eliminates most of the grey areas that come up. None of us like these technicalities- but a free for all on the cars or support isn't good either.
I do honestly believe that the standards protect the person attempting this as much as anything.
The benefit of violating any of Bink's standards is often minimal at best in the context of the overall hike- so why introduce so much potential for doubt and skepticism into your effort when it's so easily avoided?

It's a bit of a kerfuffle now either way... most of these trails have been set by that standard... so why roll it back?

The AT... depending on how clever you want to be... I think we're down to a handful miles or so off trail miles to resupply.
Dan for example- walked through the town of Kent (.2 OT) and resupplied in Salisbury (.9 OT) each way... an easy switch.
Matt had 9 total miles listed on his itinerary in 2013.
Many hikers do voluntarily add off trail miles though to pick up goodies (like ice cream or pizza) or to keep total carry weight down but the AT has lots of services that tempt hikers of any speed.

That's why it's not such a huge stretch to believe (logistically) the Joe's are creeping on Karl: for the most part they rarely have more than 2 days of food.
And no mental issues or coordination mishaps to deal with when you have a crew. Hell, Karl appears to be the case study for how critical your crew can be to the effort.
Back on Topic-
I give Dan credit for an honest account. I agree publicly and privately with your choice to NOT make the battery issue a sticking point on the review.
My opinion is that Dan simply didn't read or understand Matt and Heather's guidelines. He posted a question about hitching, and he sent somebody for batteries.
He wasn't hiding anything because he honestly didn't understand there was an issue. And he has since corresponded with me about the differences and reinforced my impressions.

An example that Dan took some issue with-
Joe M was bonking down south and happened to run into two runners in the middle of the trail who gave him a salt tab.
In Dan's mind- he ran into a hiker going into town and had him pick up batteries for him rather than get them himself.

For most of us it's pretty clear what the difference is. One is truly random, one is support. But it is subtle.
Pizza Gate was brought up as well- one mistake Anish corrected quite well on her AT hike.
I'd like to think Dan understood the difference- but hard to say. Based upon Miss Mouse's latest interview just posted above looks like he's still taking his case to the court of public opinion.
Though to be fair I believe this interview took place before Dan and I corresponded last on these items despite it getting published today.



PS- perhaps in the most exciting news you have heard in a long time Peter:
As there is no official route on the CDT- the hiking community refuses to entertain an FKT on the Continental Divide Trail for the foreseeable future!
I can't help you though if some yahoo runner goes for it though.

[chknfngrs]

Knotts to Strings issue of magic is classic Apples to oranges in my opinion.

[russb]

Here is a thought to "throw into the mix". If the purpose of the gps and batteries have nothing to do with assisting the hiker, but serve only for documentation purposes I suppose one could argue that the battery issue may not violate the self-supported concept anymore than having someone else on the trail document your whereabouts at a specific time as evidence. Just thinking out loud here. Thoughts?

[MuddyWaters]

Here is a thought to "throw into the mix". If the purpose of the gps and batteries have nothing to do with assisting the hiker, but serve only for documentation purposes I suppose one could argue that the battery issue may not violate the self-supported concept anymore than having someone else on the trail document your whereabouts at a specific time as evidence. Just thinking out loud here. Thoughts?

If someone else took time to go off trail to get their own batteries,
Then the person sending someone else may have gained an advantage

It can save effort and preserve strength, as sure as having someone else carry your pack

So yes, it can help them, if they both need it for documentation. And they do now.

[Dan Knotts Binde]

I'll be throwing a whole slide together when I get back in mid/late December or in 2 weeks if my toe is going to stay infected... The judges have heard my concerns. I feel like many things need to change and not have any double standards. You can't make a new rule if you don't even follow it in the first place.
Also have issues with the follow up.

The credit card issue is a grey area.
Not making it any better or worse, I met the hiker earlier that day. He caught up when I was taking a break and mentioned he needed to go to Walmart. He asked like the only guy in the park for a ride and we both payed for the ride. Nothing was planned.
It's impossible to get lithium batteries on trail. I tried to buy off Amazon, you can only get it thru a third party. ( Shipping takes along time)
When I was training, I tried figuring out how long my gen 2 would last. I had a discussion with my buddy on how many times I need to drop a point. He thought once a day. I was trying to drop every twelve hours. Whenever I slept, cause eventually that was the only way to drop points. (Check-ins on the spot don't work when you are walking) My tracking completely stopped working.

So I clearly stated that Credit card grey area in my write up. This is the only issue with my hike.

My big thing this year I am trying to follow: Making no excuses

I feel like the judges need to always make the decisions so they stay consistent.
I will be back here in December

[Curious G]

I'd just like to celebrate that you did something awesome dude. No matter what. And you must have been trippin beans to run up there in like whatever however little time most mortal armchairs clowns won't ever get to contemplate from the comfort of the man cave. Badass. F 'em. There's been a whole lot a talkin' about a whole lot a walkin'. Really looking forward to hearing about what that's like as an experience. When u r ready. Thanks man - go.

[nsherry61]

So, if having someone pick up some batteries off-trail for you is violating being self-supported, does that mean using a bounce box or any kind of mail drops is also a violation since doing so is using other people to transport you gear or supplies?

[matthew.d.kirk]

This is the only issue with my hike.

Dan, it may not seem this way, but the "judges" aka community have been working more with you than against you to help fill in the cracks to your story. As reported in the above post (and article), the credit card isn't the issue. It's the lack of thorough documentation (gps or usable media) along the trail.

This isn't a new rule. Refer to the collection of metadata files published during, or immediately post-hike in 2013. Documentation is important. Although actions speak loudest, perhaps it should be spelled out better. And no, we definitely don't want a double-standard: all claimants should produce such proof.

[Curious G]

And no, we definitely don't want a double-standard: all claimants should produce such proof.

I'm curious as to why this isn't applied to all claimants as in all claimants - so many thru hikers are just self reporting claimants every year a well known even notoriously not accurate measure of collecting data. Why? Same situation as here really (though I think Knotts actually completed though the battery thing is a question) folks want to make a claim for prestige and brag rights why not apply the same rigorous standard to all hike claims. This would help with other issues I think like overcrowding solutions since accurate info is key to these managing problems. I read that pretty much all the Conservancy approaches and even Baxter limits are based on self report stats. That is like having a diy marathon with no crowds and no finish line and all the runners just show up next day and say well guess what I won - me too - oh me too - oh I ran it in like a half hour so I must have won! In this way you could be sure that more people would be carrying spots around and that is only good right? (I love mine because I just push the I'm okay button and never have to talk to anyone.) If thrus want to claim it than bring a spot and prove it then we'd see what trail use really is, what finish rates really are for the first time, and people would be safer.

[Just Bill]

My big thing this year I am trying to follow: Making no excuses

Good plan.

[Just Bill]

"Who's to say
What's impossible
Well they forgot
This world keeps spinning
And with each new day
I can feel a change in everything
And as the surface breaks reflections fade
But in some ways they remain the same
And as my mind begins to spread it's wings
There's no stopping curiosity
I want to turn the whole thing upside down
I'll find the things they say just can't be found
I'll share this love I find with everyone
We'll sing and dance to Mother Nature's songs"

'Upside Down', Jack Johnson from the Curious George soundtrack.

Not sure where you're going Curious G... but an FKT isn't a thru. There is no need to validate a typical hike, and the ATC only recognizes '2000 milers'. The journey, not the destination and all that. Data is helpful for those who need data, and the ATC is working on getting some data. The vast majority of those who use the trail though will never even attempt a thru. The vast majority of those who attempt a thru will never attempt a speed hike. The vast majority of those who attempt a speed hike will never attempt a serious FKT.

FKT's are special because they are one of the amazing things that people do on the trail. A minor miracle of human spirit in regards to endurance, athletic achievement, and plain old grit. What makes it different from a miracle, is that it is documented to the point that we can all know that it happened. Miracles require faith, a record does not. And if there is anything special about them, that is it.

These amazing stories inspire others, bring them closer to the trail in some small way. But no more so than any other hiker really.
Bill Bryson and Cheryl Straid never thru-hiked a trail. But they told a good story, and the miles covered really were not too important. In many ways those were hikes more important than any FKT ever will be to the overall health of our trails. When people are inspired they come out. When they come out they may stay. If they stay they may fall in love. And if you are truly in love you will protect and cherish what you love.

Every hike is a good story, even Kaiha's, even Dan's. Everyone who chooses to go out on a long trail inspires someone in their life in some way. For those who find inspiration in such things, FKT's are inspirational stories. Nothing more, nothing less. The reason we verify these hikes isn't to determine who's name is on the trophy or because they are any more special than any other hike. It is pretty simple. A lie breaks people's hearts, but a true story heals them. 'Based upon a true story' never quite hits home quite the same as 'A true story' now does it?

A blind fella hiking the trail, an old granny reclaiming her life, soldiers walking off the war, women seeking independence, a bionic woman, an old fella, or even just an everyman who one day leaves his life in town and heads out to live his life more fully. The trail is a special place. Filled with special stories of many types. The only thing any trip on the trail has in common with another is that it's typically pretty special.

Win lose or draw, nobody can take away somebody else's hike.
The trail knows if you lied or not, you'll know it when you sit around and look back. You'll feel it next time you set foot on it.
There is no real need to certify anyone's hike in any way. Your heart will tell you the validity of your hike.
But if you choose to claim that your hike deserves a place in somebody else's heart. You better be prepared to tell the true story.
If you wish to claim your hike is a record; then you better be prepared to record it.
I can't tell you why other people care, but I can easily tell you why I do.

Mitakuye Oyasin

[Curious G]

Whoa Bill. That last one was sent out at 4:50 but I think you started typing at 4:20! LOL!

I don't really think any one hike is more special than another. In fact, I find the FKT thing right up there with BASE jumping: cool, kinda stupid, but fun to watch someone else do, and ultimately pointless.

Verified thru hikes would cut down on on trail nonsense. I forget where I read this but it isn't my idea and it seems to make sense. Make it hard to obtain and people work hard to obtain it. Hard to pump out twenty fives everyday when you're hung over all the time so parties go down. Can't hike up a highway with your thumb out so yellow blazing goes down. Can't catch a ride with an angel and call it a thru correct? Leave me alone I'm trying to do something - hike to Maine and I have to demonstrate that I did. I did it, I can prove it, here's my time, route, and certificate earned. I'm not just saying I did. I did. Make every hike special - cause they are.

[Just Bill]

Hiking is good enough, people walk the trail that suits them.

I like a good smoke, but never been much fer the wacky tabackie...I'm weird enough.