It is unfair to assume that fellrunning is somehow a poor relation to road and track and the point has been sort of made earlier - fellrunning is a specialism and comparisons between track runners and fell runners are meaningless. It's like comparing the car that won the Dakar Rally with the one that won the Formula 1 title - a pointless comparison.

Is track&field more competitive? Yes, but that doesn't detract from the prowess of fellrunners within their sphere. The very fact that most mainstream athletes are SCARED of it must add to it's kudos anyway.

On the question of past masters verus today's I have to say that there was more competition at the front a few years back. When Andy Styan set the Langdale record of 1:55 and-a-bit there were (I think) three others under 1:56. When Gavin Bland ran 1:57 much more recently he thought he'd done the second fastest time until he was told that three others (including his uncle Billy) had gone faster the day the record was set.

A bit further down the field My times from the early 90s (which usually placed me in the 20s out of a field of 200ish at the time) would nowadays get me in the top half dozen in the same races. I am therefore sure that standards generally have fallen. BUT, does that make the very best fellrunners of today inferior to the very best of say 1990? I'm not so sure...