Three Peaks Fell Race

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trundler

I'm surprised at you Graham. That's not up to your usual knowlegeable standard :eek:

The categorisation has TWO letters, not just one. The length of the race is denoted by the second letter - L, M, or S so the length of the Three Peaks should not be an issue when debating its A, B or C status. We have always been told that the A/B/C category is decided by feet of climbing and how much of the race is on true fell and how much on road/track.

Yes, the 3 Peaks is a hard race but based on what I understand of the FRA's categorisation system it's definitely a BL.

When you think about how much artificial surface you are running on I even think it borders a CL!! :rolleyes:

The reason it has been given an A status is more to do with it's long-standing fame in the fellrunning world as a tough challenge. Should this justify it's A status? I don't think so - not if the categorisation is to be considered logical and not just subjective.

---

Trundler! Stop being pernickity. Of course I know about the categories. I was keeping the argument simple.

The original categories came into being in 1972 when the first list of 31 (thirty one) races that were selected to determine the "Fellrunner of the Year" was agreed. At that time there was no "length" criterion: just A,B and C with a "C" being "some climbing and some fell"!

The PPP was in that first list as an "A" . It was listed as 22 miles and 4500 feet in those days and so technically did not qualify even then under the 250'/mile rule so for 36 years it "allegedly" has been mis-categorised.

Actually the original definitions include the phrase "height gained or lost"
which implies a pure downhill race can be a category "A"; but let's let it be.

Graham

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrahamB

Actually the original definitions include the phrase "height gained or lost"
which implies a pure downhill race can be a category "A"; but let's let it be.

Graham

---

Tryfan downhill is certainly a grade A in my book (its about the only race I would be too scared to enter).

Were I a virgin to the 3 peaks, I'd kind of want the FRA grading system to give me a grading of what to expect relative to other tough races and calling it BL would be plain wrong.[/quote]

In that case should the Wadsworth Trog not be an A as it a harder race than the 3 peaks.

.... and therefore Borrowdale must be easier than the 3 Peaks because it's the same grade and 6 miles shorter?

I haven't done the trog so can't comment on whether its harder or not but I'd say the 3 peaks, whilst have maybe 3 more miles and plus or minus 900 ft more ascent, is also a race with some really open stretches for fast running. I don't know about you but being able to run fast doesn't to my mind make the running easier.

As for Borrowdale thats all about terrain, most of it nightmarish. Jumping to the ToP, that too is a fastish course but with a killer last 3 miles. I expect that the elite runners at the front suffer pretty much the same running them all whereas, for me, I suffer marginally less I think on slower going terrain.

If the A, B and C categorisation of fell races is supposed to be a (subjective) indicator of difficulty then why doesn't it say that in the FRA literature?

The fact is category A races have a clear definition and the 3 peaks doesn't match that definition. Surely mis-categorising races just creates confusion?

Perhaps it's time some sleeping dogs were woken up and race categories were looked at again.

I agree. It's surely not meant to be a subjective measure. In fact, I think it must have been an attempt to get away from subjective grading and bring some objectivity to the process of grading races.

One of the biggest difficulties with grading fell races is objectively assessing the terrain, yet this is the thing that marks out a true fell race from a road or trail race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominion

.... and therefore Borrowdale must be easier than the 3 Peaks because it's the same grade and 6 miles shorter?

---

But if the peaks is a B in A's clothing that does not work as an argument, whereas Borrowdale is an A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gej

Tryfan downhill is certainly a grade A in my book (its about the only race I would be too scared to enter).

---

I'd say the Tryfan downhill is definitely a cat A based on height difference and terrain. I've been saying for a while that there's room for an A+ category for the most extreme races. The Tryfan downhill would be a candidate, despite having no climb! :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trundler

I agree. It's surely not meant to be a subjective measure. In fact, I think it must have been an attempt to get away from subjective grading and bring some objectivity to the process of grading races.

One of the biggest difficulties with grading fell races is objectively assessing the terrain, yet this is the thing that marks out a true fell race from a road or trail race.

---

I have already explained how the categorisation came about ie solely in connection with the introduction of Fellrunner of the Year. (Because more points were to be awarded for "A" races than "C".) The PPP, for example, had been run for decades before 1972 and nobody asked "oh! but what category is it?"

The current categorisation system is useful but crude- this thread on its previous excursions to the topic has noted that the start line of races have been moved 100 yards to change a category for Champ purposes, that race lengths are suspiciously "X.9 miles" lengths and some heights and lengths are suspiciously rounded. There are races which are notoriously "mis-measured" but at the end of the day what does it matter?

The best criterion is the record time and who holds it.