Corbetts versus Munros! Which is the bigger challenge? As someone who's bagged them all, I have the data and stories to answer this question.

Image from Munro's Tables front cover

Not as obvious an answer as it sounds!

Most mountain enthusiasts in Britain will be familiar with the terms “Munro” and “Corbett,” being the collective names given to Scotland's 500 or so highest peaks. Munros are all those mountains that exceed 3000ft, with no limit, whilst Corbetts are all those mountains that exceed 2500ft but do not exceed 3000ft.

Munros

Many will have climbed a few, whilst a few will have climbed many. A minority will have climbed them all.

The majority of those living outside Scotland may have climbed few or none, (Ben Nevis, Ben Lawers, Ben Lomond, Cairngorm excepted!), although they may well have given the idea some thought.

Many, who have done just a few Munros will protest that “They are not really doing the Munros, but are just doing the more famous and  attractive ones”. By the time members of this group have done, say 72 Munros, (and thus now showing that they are actually counting), they will still protest they are not aiming to do them all, whereas in fact they are now starting to harbour that ambition.

Corbetts

Many walkers outside Scotland may not be familiar with the actual definition, or the names and numbers of, “Corbetts. Some may have done the odd random one, possibly without even realising that it was a Corbett.

The fact that the vast percentage of Scottish Hills have Gaelic Names is a big contributor to many peoples ignorance.

Hardened locals tend to concentrate on The Munros as the main target, with the Corbetts regarded as a possible future target.

But this article is aimed at those dedicated souls who aspire to complete both the Munros and the Corbetts.

It is uncommon to find a walker who has “done” the Corbetts but not the Munros. The few that fall into this category possibly stumbled at those last few Munros that require a degree of serious scrambling or even rock-climbing. Its probably fair to say that the majority of Corbetteers are also Munroists.

More commonly the Corbetts will be tackled after the Munros have been completed, or abandoned.

So this article is aimed at looking at which is the less difficult challenge. I hesitate to say “Easier challenge”.

In other words, are the Munros, or are the Corbetts the bigger challenge?!

There is generally not much discussion on this topic, because its a silly question.. After all its pretty obvious isn't it?

But few of those who have tackled the two ventures appear to have written about their day to day statistics, and, if they have, then they were amazingly fit and had completed them in a ridiculously short time.

Several have written books relating their adventures and experiences. After all no one will complete a round of these hills without having a host of stories to tell. Rarely do you find a “normal”, comprehensive, review about what is required to complete a full round. That's where “Normal Neville” comes in. (Its what my friends call me !!)

Lets look firstly at the bare bones of the two challenges. Basic Facts:-

• There are many more Munros  than Corbetts: Approx 280 as opposed to 220

•  Every Munro is higher than every Corbett

  
  

QED: No more information is required?! Obviously...The Munro Challenge far exceeds that of the Corbetts. Next question please....

But...

Having completed a round of the Munros and also a round of the Corbetts and being a Chartered Accountant, I thought about the Statistics. (Phone number and terms available! Apply 40 years ago! Sorry.. joking...I stopped taking clients when someone came into my office and offered me a “Floppy Disc?” and said “Here are my records...” About 1980 I think it was !)

Naturally, as I just said, as an Accountant, everything is down to Statistics, Statistics and more Damn Statistics!!

Over the years I naturally kept a brief diary of hills done, height gain, time taken, weather etc etc.

One obvious question stuck out a mile...

The Munros took us from 1980 to 1988, whilst the Corbetts took us from 1988 to 2000. So why did it take about 4 years longer to complete the Corbetts?

It could of course be that we spent more days on the Munros, or that we took the Corbetts at a more leisurely pace, or maybe there were other reasons.

There can, of course, be a problem in reading just  “one mans” statistics. Is this man a “fell runner” who thinks nothing of doing 10 peaks and 30 miles per day? Or perchance 10 miles per day with 4000ft climbing. Then again many fit walkers easily manage 15 miles and 5000ft. Everyone is different and fitness and determination often plays a greater part than does age!

But in our case it was, basically, the same three people, a little older, a little wiser, and of course a little more “normal”.

When we set off in 1980 we were aged about 40, 32 and 27. I had been a Scout Leader and had later teamed up with a couple of ex Scouts. Over a 20 year period we completed the Munros and then the Corbetts.

Curiosity killed the cat, but I was damned if it was going to kill me. So, as the years ticked on, this curiosity led to me doing some paperwork analysis.

Like others, when we commenced the Corbetts we made the obvious assumption that they would occupy considerably less time than had the Munros. It didn't!   Why?

Did we spent less days on the hills doing the Corbetts? Not so. The Corbetts in fact took us 16 days longer despite their being considerably less of them.

We did 221 Corbetts as against 282 Munros, and the Corbetts took longer ???

My own records, for a complete round, revealed the following basic facts:-

Note that to complete both challenges a combined height total of over 1 million ft was required and a total of over 3000 miles (5000k) miles walked. This is equal to around 220 ascents of Ben Nevis and 3 x Lands End to John O Groats walked,

From the above statistics we can ascertain:-

Whether, a Munro day entailed a greater overall height gain and a higher overall mileage.

So, if we look at an average day on the hill, we find that a Munro day was typically 11.7 miles against a Corbett day of 8.9 miles. (Total miles divided by total days).

On a Munro day we averaged 3858ft and on a Corbett day it was only 2861ft. (Total height divided by total days).

So, case proven. A Munro day was more miles and more height gain. So.. The Munros were harder?!!

So, at the risk of repeating myself: “Next Question!”

Not so fast, if you please!!!

The Munro days may have been longer, with more height gain, but the AVERAGE mileage per hill and the AVERAGE height gain per hill gives a completely different picture.

The average mileage for each individual Munro was 6.26 miles whereas the average mileage for each Corbett was GREATER, being 6.74 miles. (Total miles divided by total hills).

The average height gain per individual Munro was 2065ft whereas the average height gain per Corbett was 2162ft, (Total height divided by total hills).

So, each individual Corbett required, on average, more distance and more height gain than each individual Munro.

The reason for this surprising difference is that it was possible to climb more Munros per day (1.86) than Corbetts (1.32).

The Corbetts are, generally, further away from their neighbour than the Munros are from THEIR neighbour. This is borne out by an analysis of each days achievement, set out below.

Analysis of how many mountains we climbed in one day:-

The above analysis shows, for example, that on 48 days we managed just one Munro, whilst on 116 days we managed just 1 Corbett. So 52% of Corbetts were climbed on their own, whilst only 17% of Munros were climbed on their own.

On 20 days we managed more than 3 Munros, whilst on only 1 day did we manage did more than 3 Corbetts.

So it was easier to add an extra Munro than to add an extra Corbett.

Conclusion

The Munros may be higher and greater in number, and Munro days may be longer and involve more height gain, but doing the Corbetts involves more miles per individual mountain and more height gain per individual mountain, and, despite their being a smaller number of hills, the Corbetts require more days on the hill than do the Munros.

So, its official. The Corbetts are actually proven a greater challenge than the Munros.

Or are they?!

Nothing is ever simple and this debate is no exception.

The statistics, however you look at them, are flawed, in that, although they attempt to include all the figures, they do not take into account all the facts.

The biggest single and most relevant factor that is not reflected in the statistics is “Conditions”.

All the time spent on Corbetts is at below 3,000ft.

Much of the time spent on Munros is at above 3,000ft.

In fact, much of the time on Munros is spent at over 4,000ft. There is a big difference in the climate as one gets higher.

These differences often affect the level of difficulty...

• Wind speed can be significantly greater

• Temperatures can be significantly lower

• Snow depth can be significantly deeper

• Frozen surfaces can be much more prevalent

• Ice axes will more regularly be required

• Crampons will more regularly be required

• Terrain can be increasingly more rugged

• Walking speed can fall dramatically

• Navigation often becomes  more important, more difficult, more demanding and more time consuming

  
  

To summarize...at times its a totally different planet.

So, using my own valuable personal vote, I am led back, like any “Normal” person, to the original, originally not so obvious, conclusion.

Munros are a greater challenge than the Corbetts. But not every day, and not every Corbett!

Sorry to take so long, but I have enjoyed examining it, and I hope that you have.

Any time discussing Scottish Mountains is never wasted time. Friends and partners may not agree!

Cheers,   

Normal Neville!!

If you like this blog please give me a star rating, a comment or a 'heart' below. Or all three would be amazing! If you scroll right down towards the end of the page you will find where you can do this... and see other people's comments. Huge thanks for interacting it will keep me posting!- Normal Neville.