HikeArizona.COM

I recently noticed that there aren't any members listed as "extreme" in the match thinggy. I remember there used to be some...where did they go?

I've seen different definitions for "extreme" hikes and hikers and was wondering what peoples thoughts were on this topic. I've done some difficult day hikes, but I don't think any were extreme.
Some definitions I've seen were...over 14 miles,over 4k in elevation,ones that lack oxygen.
What would you call an extreme hike?

Probably depends on your fitness level. Then you have to factor in mood, terrain, weather and gear among other variables most ignore. Generally I function at about 80% of a Bob. Then again, somedays I'm 150% of a Bob

I think of that as being anything over 12,000' for a day hike... mileage not a consideration until you go beyond 40 miles, and, of course, once you're off trail it turns into whether or not you made it back with all/most of the parts and pieces in their proper place... but then again, I'm getting on up there in years... have to draw a lower level line than in my youth.

imike wrote:anything over 12,000' for a day hike... mileage not a consideration until you go beyond 40 miles

I'd call those two criteria "INSANE"....and definitely beyond extreme.

hippiepunkpirate wrote:

imike wrote:anything over 12,000' for a day hike... mileage not a consideration until you go beyond 40 miles

I'd call those two criteria "INSANE"....and definitely beyond extreme.

So, we now get to have a new classification...? Will it have age adjusted criteria?

beginner
intermediate
advanced
extreme
imike

edit: forgot the bob level too

dysfunction wrote:beginner
intermediate
advanced
extreme
imike

edit: forgot the bob level too

...hmmm... that last designation would then be too narrowly defined... better to stick with a more generic designation. There is a realm beyond me, really, well beyond me. 33,000' and 100+ miles in 24 hours, a level I will likely never match. I might go over 20,000' and 50-60 miles in a day's effort, so either the upper level is really broad, or it is left as a single designation simply because of the relatively small number of people in it.

perhaps a last category of "strange meat" with subcategories of "rare" "medium" and "well done"

Hrm, even perhaps 'ultra-runner' would be too narrow a definition...

hippiepunkpirate wrote:

imike wrote:anything over 12,000' for a day hike... mileage not a consideration until you go beyond 40 miles

I'd call those two criteria "INSANE"....and definitely beyond extreme.

I agree. Back when I was with the Pfund, I classified myself as extreme. I was hiking every day, in rough country with little to no support. For me, extreme doesn't equal insane miles or insane elevation. It equals the ability to get out of the truck and get where you want, regardless of obstacles (cliffs, rivers, or even miles). I would routinely be scaling the western face of the Vermilion Cliffs solo for the Pfund in spring and winter. Now my hiking has been somewhat curtailed by having an indoor job.
I think another way to base Advanced vs. Extreme is where you are willing to go. I don't think that someone who hikes Camelback and Piestewa and South Mountain exclusively would be considered Extreme (in my book at least), no matter how many times they could go up and down a given trail in a day.
Advanced and Extreme really blend into each other, I think. I'd consider myself a very advanced hiker, despite the fact I've never cracked 12,000' for a day hike, or even 20 miles in a day. But you can drop me anywhere on the Colorado Plateau and I will hike to where I need to go. End of story. I'm not trying to be a braggart or boastful, honestly. I just know my skills and limitations, and can use them all to my advantage on a hike.

rlrjamy wrote:I recently noticed that there aren't any members listed as "extreme" in the match thinggy. .....

One of the reasons for the match feature is to find someone to hike with. It is useful to be listed in a higly populated category so that you have more chance of getting matched. As a result, it is probable that the extreme hikers prefer to list as advanced. Exhibit A is our webmaster whose mileage and AEG totals for the year are big enough for me to call his commitment and capabilities extreme.

There would reasonably be a variety of perspectives: one, a comparative of standards within a set group, another, a standard relative to a single individual, and based solely from their singular perspective, and third, a standard based on the full range of norms. If it were just based on the individual, then the range would only include the potentials they would ever have. If it were based on a defined smaller group like the HAZ hikers, then the range might be the full range established by their potentials... ignoring the levels of activity of those outside that group... on both the lower and upper end. For the purpose of matching up hikers, that is probably the best standard to use.

For a "real" standard, might as well include the full range of potentials. They do exist. Those hikers/trail runners functioning out on those broader levels are probably just having fun on the trail like all of us, just doing it at a level that clocks a lot of mileage/elevation. It is not better or worse, and probably not at all insane. The guy that put in that 33,000', 100 mile day had fun doing it. I'd say he's deserving of being included in some category rather than pretending he doesn't exist. I recall a very similar problem with classifications in Kayaking decades ago... there was a set standard used for the nation, and as the level of skills grew, various rivers were well and reasonably downgraded. The Colorado River through the Grand Canyon was correctly rated a class III river... without even a nice challenging Class four rapid (rating system was 1 thru 6). This system was so insulting to the boaters of the Colorado that they abandoned this international standard and created their own rating system, 1 thru 10.... just so as to not be embarrassed by the true lower rating... accurate as it was.

Now, there probably does not need to be a hiker rating system... but if there is, why not make one to include all the potentials? We can already feel pretty good about being in the top 99.999 percentile of the world's population, just by getting out the door to hike our easiest hikes. There will always be someone out there better, faster, stronger... and that's not a bad thing...

Standards are comparative; might as well also make them inclusive... we will never quantify the real values of our activities: the sense of the outdoor experience with the variety of benefits and qualities experienced... but the simple physical effort. That would could define, to some reasonable degree.

I've been thinking about this as I watched my children attempt to drive my wife and myself crazy this evening.. and while out for a short little ride this afternoon. Like such fleeting things as a sharp blade, these definitions are floating targets. What would have been 'advanced' or 'extreme' to me at one point is now pretty much average and my baseline has shifted. I remember a point in time when doing 16-20 miles would have been unthinkable as a day hike, and anyone who did so would have been 'extreme' or at least certainly 'advanced'. Now, it's certainly doable to the point where it's a do-ably comfortable day even with a pack. Without an established, and pre-agreed upon, baseline that's likely to stay that way.

johnr1 wrote:Exhibit A

Take it from the exhibits mouth, I'm no extremest. Wally, Bob, iMike and countless others are all in way better shape than myself. Those guys are naturals, I kick and scream to get like results.

Although the Phx Summits are frowned upon by many it's where I live and I enjoy the people too. If I wanted to be alone I'd move to Iceland and I for sure as heck wouldn't be on the internet.

<<beginner
intermediate
advanced
extreme
imike>>
How about adding a level beyond "imike" labelled "Special Forces with a marathon fetish"?
I'd be happy to be in the "advanced" category. There is not only the fitness component, but the mental one as well. I know folks who can kill it all day on the StepMill, but turn into a puddle while walking up a hill with 500' AEG. I also know people who would require medical attention if they tried to rock the StepMill @ LA Fitness for 10 minutes, but can easily handle Icehouse Canyon.

...how about extreme... then simply xxtreme, xxxtreme, etc... lay a baseline with incremental x levels for the beyond... I don't think Imike is really a standard... way too inconsistent...

dysfunction wrote:. . . these definitions are floating targets. What would have been 'advanced' or 'extreme' to me at one point is now pretty much average and my baseline has shifted. I remember a point in time when doing 16-20 miles would have been unthinkable as a day hike, and anyone who did so would have been 'extreme' or at least certainly 'advanced'. Now, it's certainly doable to the point where it's a do-ably comfortable day even with a pack. Without an established, and pre-agreed upon, baseline that's likely to stay that way.

I agree completely with dysfunction.

As I've thought about this a few misconceptions have cleared up and a few definitions are forming.

If you view Humphreys Summit as a good little training hike - you might be extreme.
If Royal Arch-Elves Chasm is a nice little walk in the park - you might be extreme.
If you hike where Rambo and Indiana Jones fear to tread - you might be extreme.

I had this mental image of an extreme hiker as one with lots of tattoos and body piercings who had other hikers in dog collars and on leashes - I won't finish the rest of this mental picture. That is probably eXXXtreme.

Al_HikesAZ wrote: I had this mental image of an extreme hiker as one with lots of tattoos and body piercings who had other hikers in dog collars and on leashes - I won't finish the rest of this mental picture. That is probably eXXXtreme.

I understand hiking haz been found to be somwhat effective, in a theraputic environment, for troubled individuals suffering from bizarre mental images. ;)

I have a friend in CO that would probably rank in the Advanced/Extreme category. Heck he's only 68 and leads hikes for the Colorado Moutain Club that go the limit of 15 to 20 miles. Has climbed major peaks around the world. I may be advanced for most guys my age, but not anywhere near the extremes that some of those young ones do. Especially those two that just did the skeleton cave sojourn.

No matter how tough, fit, or awesome you think you are - there are probably fifty or sixty people nearby that are tougher, fitter, or even more awesome. Defining oneself by means of comparison to others is a recipe for personal angst and disaster. Besides, elevation is NOT the only factor when it comes to difficulty. Most fit 14 year-old kids could probably walk up 12,000' of elevation in a day with a light pack; few could flash a class IV route that is only one pitch and maybe 30m in length even if it started from solid ground pack or no.

I don't know, I was fearless when it came to climbing as a kid. Did a lot more things than I should have, where today I wouldn't even consider it sans rope. As far as the topic goes I don't really think it matters. What is advanced for one person is a walk in the park for another.