Personally, I'd just go by total amount of climbing for the whole event, which is what I think the very first AAA was measured by. The more altitude gain, the more altitude points. Over time this was distorted becasue some events with more altitude gain were percieved by many, the majority even, to be easier than events with less altitude gain, mainly because the event with less altitude gain did it all in one go, where the higher altitude gaining event was mildly hilly throughout.
Plus, I would have a minimum amount of climb for AAA points regardless of distance, which would be pretty low. Even long and relatively flat events like LEL would have maybe just a few AAA points, so that would encourage long distance cycling. But obviously, someone going for AAA points would be doing longer and hilly rides like Maniac Grimpeur or just more long hilly rides.
I don't hold much sympathy with the argument that some events with less altitude gain are harder than other events with more altitude gain myself. Some events are harder than others and that's how it is. Maybe we sould have a headwind award too? (and I bet I'd have the record for that!
)
Anyway, it's all been said and done in AGMs past and the votes were cast and won which leaves us where we are now.
