This was posted to Peter’s FKT site after the original post:
Photo is on Facebook page for Nye. Bummed for her that it looks like she missed a turn that close to the end.
You may need to be “friends” with Betsy Nye to see the photo, and she hasn’t accepted the friend request from my shady-assed Facebook pseudonym persona yet.
I am surprised that there’s much deliberation about the issue. I had assumed it would be fairly black and white: The JMT FKT is for the fastest known time for someone hiking the JMT, not the JMT with alterations. Assuming speculations about her route are true, then Darcy missed 1.3 miles or so of the JMT. Sure, she hiked an equally difficult (or more difficult) alternative, but that’s really not the point. She missed 1.3 miles of the JMT.
If John got down to Whitney Portal, then turned around and said “I’ll just make up the distance, and go back up at least 0.25 miles and a few hundred feet, then turn around again,” would we all be nodding, saying, “Good enough. He got the distance and elevation gain; let’s call it good.”?
No of, course not. John’s effort was absolutely awesome. So was Darcy’s. Both belong in the Annals of Fastpacking History. Unfortunately, neither represent the fastest known time along the JMT.
We could call it that–we could call it a JMT FKT–and I’d sure feel better about Darcy. But what do we tell the next person who attempts one: You can take some alternatives, if it’s a mistake? Or, all alternatives are fair game, so long as the distance and elevation are equal? Or what? I think it gets subjective very quickly, and I think there should be little room for subjectivity in a race along a defined route.