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.