geomorph wrote:The dilemma is that 'middle' is technically different from 'short classic' so there are some genuine 's' runners who would lose out if there were no 's' courses. If there is a true demand for a 'short classic' then it should be a separate event into which all can enter and not be constrained by it running at the same time as the long/classic. Right now the same group of people would win these as win the classic distance, though over time this may change if people specialise.
But what's the point when for an event of that length a proper middle race is much better than a "short classic"? If the S runners aren't physically up to running a classic course to the level they want to, or simply want to run a shorter distance for any other reason, then maybe they should specialise in running middle courses - though they will probably still find the people who are at the top in the classic distance coming and winning the middle race too.
The only problem of course is the lack of proper middle events - not helped by the attitude of many that they get better value for money by being out in the forest for longer. Isn't one of the aims of the new event structure to encourage more of these type of events? I'm definitely with Mrs H on this one - one of the most memorable and enjoyable runs I've had recently was a Blue planned as a (maybe slightly long) middle. Would rather do that than spend longer in the forest on a boring Brown any day.