Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 197110 [2016/03/16 15:06] – tyreless
+++ 197110 [2016/03/16 15:07] – tyreless
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-If it be accepted that there is justification for demanding a measure of physical fitness, probably the best and fairest way of gauging it is by test walks, as the Club has done from its early years. It follows that there should be a wide variety of trips on the programme, allowing the __complete novice__ to make a steady progression through easy day walks where he can acclimatize; moderate day test walks to get launched on the business of qualifying without being ruined; leisurely camps so that he can get used to carrying a weekend pack, and find out what he should take; and finally, week-end test walks sensibly geared to a prospective's increasing experience and capacity. If some of these set out on a Saturday, so much the better.
+That's not a bad image in one way, but maybe it could be improved if we concentrated a little more on being "those friendly people" and didn't make quite such a fe_tish about physical achievement. Of course, we don't subscribe to W.C.Fields' dictum "Never give a sucker a break", but we don't really go very far out of our way to "amalgamate those who esteem walking" or to "help others appreciate our natural gifts".
-Unfortunately, in any six months' period it would be a rarety to find such a diversity of walks in a sequence that would be suitable to a beginner. If some of the quite numerous members who enjoy walks of a moderate standard would commit themselves to leading such trips it would be of immeasurable help.
-Are our test walks too severe, as some members aver? The test walks are selected by Committee from the trips available on the programme, and should be similar in scope to the Pattern Walks laid down by a General Meeting. Within those restraints a succession of Committees has, over the years, usually managed to make a fairly discreet choice, but it is not an easy task.