Three Peaks Fell Race

The Three Peaks is a terrific race and a great experience - no doubt about that - when you're there, you know that you are part of a significant event - an fantastic occasion.

And, by the time that you're trying to maintain an upright course over the slippery limestone cobbles of Sulber Nick, your legs (and the rest of your body) are letting you know that it certainly ain't easy.

The event, the difficulty, the organisation, the ambience ... these all tell you that this is no minor race. And yet the FRA, by allowing the categorisation of all fell races by two sets of three pretty crude and arbitrary measurements, effectively perpetuates the argument that this race is second best.

I agree with others on this thread - I think it's time that the system changed.

Not so long ago, the length (S, M, L) part of races used to be measured by record time. This was a GOOD idea designed by men with experience who knew that the time which a good runner took to traverse the race course under race conditions would be an indication of how difficult and challenging the terrain could be.

Unfortunately, this didn't go down too well with the bean counters in the FRA who couldn't get their heads around the fact that a race could change category whenever a better runner came along and ran it that little bit faster. And so the measurement became based simply upon the length of the course. It no longer mattered what the terrain was like ... and classic, quality races like the Three Peaks, like Kentmere suffered as a consequence.

It was a bad decision.

I know that the previous system was imperfect, but the one that replaced it is far worse - and as the subject of this thread indicates, it is useless as a measure of quality.

Graham, I agree with all that you are saying ... but, unless the FRA goes back to the drawing board and comes up with an effective way of measuring fell races, then this topic will rear its ugly head again and again and again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yorkshire Thug

Graham, I agree with all that you are saying ... but, unless the FRA goes back to the drawing board and comes up with an effective way of measuring fell races, then this topic will rear its ugly head again and again and again.

---

If they do that he might end up as GrahamA - if he's hard enough!;)

I agree with much of what is being said by GB and YT above. Yes the system is crude, yes the Three Peaks is a major race, yes it was a mistake to change the old time=length criterion and yes the record time and who holds it usually tells you a lot about any race.

Does the category matter? Well, it's debatable but someone must have thought so to have devised the system in the first place, and lots of people must still use it as an important clue about the race they are thinking of doing (along with the record time, who holds it, what's the distance and the hieght gain/loss). Any system like this is bound to be flawed - there is so much variety in fell races (that's what makes them so interesting).

I still think we should have a system (the grading is still a useful clue) but I think the current system is due for an overhaul (though that's an unenviable task, knowing the heated debate ANY system will produce).

Back to the Three Peaks question: No matter how fond you are of it as a challenge and as an event it certainly shouldn't be in the same category as Wasdale, or the Arrochar Alps - even Peaks afficionados must concede that, surely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swoop

If they do that he might end up as GrahamA - if he's hard enough!;)

---

Trust Swoop to bring a bit of levity into it.... Keep up the good work Swoop :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trundler

I agree with much of what is being said by GB and YT above. Yes the system is crude, yes the Three Peaks is a major race, yes it was a mistake to change the old time=length criterion and yes the record time and who holds it usually tells you a lot about any race.

Does the category matter? Well, it's debatable but someone must have thought so to have devised the system in the first place, and lots of people must still use it as an important clue about the race they are thinking of doing (along with the record time, who holds it, what's the distance and the hieght gain/loss). Any system like this is bound to be flawed - there is so much variety in fell races (that's what makes them so interesting).

I still think we should have a system (the grading is still a useful clue) but I think the current system is due for an overhaul (though that's an unenviable task, knowing the heated debate ANY system will produce).

Back to the Three Peaks question: No matter how fond you are of it as a challenge and as an event it certainly shouldn't be in the same category as Wasdale, or the Arrochar Alps - even Peaks afficionados must concede that, surely?

---

Agreed, but neither should it be a BL like eg Gisborough Moors which is a gentle stroll across the moors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yorkshire Thug

Not so long ago, the length (S, M, L) part of races used to be measured by record time. This was a GOOD idea designed by men with experience who knew that the time which a good runner took to traverse the race course under race conditions would be an indication of how difficult and challenging the terrain could be.

---

Why only "men"?

For some reason that's prompted me to rely "I'm a lady" (a la 'Little Britain')??

Sorry - haven't really progessed the thread any further by that! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrahamB

Agreed, but neither should it be a BL like eg Gisborough Moors which is a gentle stroll across the moors.

---

But then you get into the whole argument of how to categorise a race, which must be a bloody nightmare. Ascent/mile is OK, but it does miss out how high you get too, which in many ways is a more accurate measure of the seriousness of the undertaking. It's probably better to leave it as it is, and just accept that the categories are only rough and some races will be in other categories.

It seems silly that Pen Y Ghent Fell race (and I presume Ingleborough) would be AS/AM races, yet the 3 peaks somehow categorised as a BL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

It's probably better to leave it as it is, and just accept that the categories are only rough and some races will be in other categories.

---

Wisdom at last.

Who's bothered?

If you enjoy a true test of "off road running" does it really matter what letter has been typed in a book.

Enjoy the challange, enjoy the day and look round as you go over the summits.

Thats fell running.;)