FatBoy wrote:It doesn't seem to matter much what the distance was (although I rest my case about browns existing at 6km)
I never disputed the fact (that was me by the way - apologies for accidental anonymity), I was merely indicating what they should be, and agreeing that planning had recently been rather off beam on occasions. Indeed, to add weight to your point, I notice that this past weekend the NOC event at Bestwood had "Brown" of 6.2k, w/t=47mins and half the field faster than the recommended range. Definitely not a Brown course!
According to BOF rules Brown should be 0.88 of what an M21L regional would be - therefore an hour on a Brown means I should be doing about 68 on an M21L. I wish. That said, aside from Bulford there wasn't much scope to extend the courses much than there were already.
Just to clarify, there is nothing in the rules about distances: they are all in the guidelines. Subtle but important difference.
There are a number of criteria laid out in the guidelines: distances, time that most competitors should take (so broad as to be almost meaningless admittedly), ratio to M21L. On the first, most of the Browns you highlight are within the guidelines, similarly on the second, most are not on the third. This is one of the problems with the guidelines: they are so full of detail trying to be helpful that they can get self-contradictory. It's why when defining the junior classes originally, we stuck to one set of criteria (range of distances), but were overruled by then Technical committee who wanted to include the kitchen sink.
So yes, a couple definitely too short, the rest on the short side, but still Brown standard. Having said all of that, I think your last sentence is probably the most important. Just a pity that such misleading labels were attached on occasions.