Compiling a list of the finest hills in Britain and Ireland is necessarily subjective, even if strict criteria is adhered to. Most lists are qualified by height and relative prominence, with no weight given to what we might define as quality. There are many books in the ‘Greatest Walks’ category, although all have precepts, limitations to content or curiosities in their selection process to some degree.

Similarly, if you Google ‘Best Hills’ you will find numerous offerings from many sources, however, most of these are restricted to perhaps ten or twenty hills for easy social media digestion, thus of little value to us in our quest to include everything that is ‘Worthy’.

In addition, there is one longer, rather more officially recognised list, compiled by Trail Magazine. It reveals no criteria, but presumably the ‘hand-picked’ selection involved much deliberation by the experts doing the choosing. The list is known as the Trail 100 and covers UK hills only, although endeavours to cover a wide diversity, resulting in the inclusion of a small number of minor tops such as Roseberry Topping and Hound Tor.

In a similar fashion, https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/ offers a range of lists according to User Ratings, again with no specific metrics for the User to guide their judgement. The ratings throw up some interesting choices, for example, Eagle Crag in Borrowdale achieves number 17 out of the 214 Wainwrights, whereas Wetherlam only attains 51st place. Both are fine hills, and one assumes the thrilling frontal ascent of Eagle Crag is the reason for its elevated status, although in my view Wetherlam has that little bit more to offer all round.

Walk Highlands provide a forum for walk reports and there are also a phenomenal number on https://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/. I have spent many hours reading reports, although gauging an indication of the writers’ perception of quality is not always obvious.

Everyone’s idea of what they enjoy about hills is different, some concentrate on the challenge, others on the view, so perhaps it may be prudent to consider objective points of reference, whereby a case can be argued for each selection!

I have discovered a couple of lists that are based on specific criteria. One covers Scotland and the other Ireland. You can read more about the Scottish selection (and many entertaining blog posts) here: https://www.iainshillwanderings.co.uk/post/the-best-282

The list was compiled by Scottish Mountain Guide Iain Thow and similarly experienced friends, and adheres to set criteria with points given for: Shape, Rockiness, Wildness, Separateness and Complexity.

There are 282 hills on the list, which might lead you to think they comprise solely of Munros, although hills of all height are included. The specific fundamentals chosen perhaps favour rugged grandeur and remoteness, although they too result in some curious outcomes. For example, lowly but rocky Arthur’s Seat gains 55th place, with Ben More (Crianlarich) and Stobinian languishing at joint 216 on the list. That is merely an observation, not a criticism!

As for Ireland, https://mountainviews.ie is a very useful site and includes a rating for every summit, based on somewhat differing criteria: Challenge, Aesthetic, View, Wilderness, Location (variety of ascents), Access (restrictions) and Environment (damage by walkers). It is pertinent that ‘challenge’ comes first, as anyone who is accustomed to the trackless, rocky and boggy terrain of Irish mountains knows only too well that challenge is the fundamental aspect of most hills!

There is some overlap with the two sets of criteria and what seems clear is that each is suited to the home country. For our list of Worthies, the aim is to include the best from not only Scotland and Ireland but also some of the more gentle upland districts of England, where most hills would not rank highly using all those parameters. We cannot accurately compare the Cuillin with the Cotswolds on a like for like basis. However, if certain gold standards were established, they could be transposed over each individual region to compare within.

I see no value in choosing different words for the criteria than those already employed above, so let’s extract what is valuable from the existing indicators. As perhaps those most applicable to lower lying hills, from the Scottish criteria we could draw Shape and Complexity and from the Irish, Aesthetic and View.

ENTER THE CRITERIA…

Complexity describes the intricacies of a hill, its facets, multiplicity of features and variety of ascent routes. Clearly, most Scottish giants score highly in regard to complexity, although even lower hills elsewhere, when measured against their peers, can exhibit some distinction.

In Scotland one mountain may have many tops, whereas in the Lake District each top is considered a separate mountain, although usually several tops would be linked together as part of a customary walking route. Effectively this provides complexity, particularly if we choose to nominate a parent hill and its satellites as subsidiary tops.

I would argue that Shape is a factor within Aesthetic, along with other endearing qualities such presence, character and individuality. Aesthetic is basically how attractive a hill looks to the observer, along with bestowing the perception of climbing something of merit. Think Suilven and you can grasp the concept easily. However, even Suilven needs to be extra special because it stands amidst the multitude of wildly exotic shapes of the Assynt hills, all of which strive for pre-eminence. The north west of Scotland is a vast temple of Worthies!

An important factor is that Aesthetic is not merely the view seen from a convenient road. A mountain may be secluded but once observed in its setting creates an indelible impression. Many hills in the Highlands will be affected by this consideration.

View encompasses the outlook seen on the ascent as well as from the summit. It is not always a far-reaching prospect that is the finest. Sometimes the intimate spectacle of a nearby craggy peak is equally rewarding or even elements of the subject hill itself.

In addition to the above criteria, I believe an important factor to a lot of people would be the precise qualities of the ascents. What we can term Route Satisfaction is an indicator of how enjoyable is the process of climbing and descending the hill, along with the level of sustained interest throughout. Having an easy path would attract much support, although this nullifies the challenge to those who are attracted by a scrambling route. Add to this remoteness, which is a draw for many and an important factor to evaluate in wild areas.

Another point is that whilst ‘separateness’ may enhance aesthetic, it is not necessarily the most desirable feature for everyone. It could be argued that hills have augmented value through being connected to others, thus providing additional ridge walking opportunities as part of a varied outing and thus increase route satisfaction. It’s a tricky balance and just one more reason why most upland districts must be judged separately.

Underfoot conditions affect perceptions of quality. Undue quantities of scree or boulder fields are generally not an asset to an ascent for most people. A boggy slog is far too heavily weighted on challenge and only pleasurable to the masochistic, of which the Worthies are definitely not a measure! Bogs are an issue. However, it is important to consider that what is an unpleasant struggle after weeks of rain may be a delightfully firm surface during a drought or when frozen!

Interest throughout an ascent also derives from such varied attributes as geology, remoteness, history, culture or other significance. Perhaps we could consider these elements as a separate criterion to award bonus points under the heading Special Qualities.  

For example, a major part of the allure of Croagh Patrick is its spiritual significance. For our purposes it is less important than physical geomorphology, although it is integral to the atmosphere of the mountain and should not be overlooked. Such allure attracts visitors in droves and makes a hill popular, although in general I would consider popularity to be a neutral factor; some are drawn in the belief that if it’s popular, it’s good, whereas others are repelled by the hordes.

One might also argue that superior height is a special quality. It is certainly the reason an excess of people climb the highest peaks in each country. For many, remoteness adds considerable interest. A long approach affords a sense of magical isolation, a treasured ingredient to many. Nonetheless, a big car park halfway up the hill is the prime bonus for others!

Ultimately, I think it unwise for me to be solely responsible for allocating ratings. A single person’s opinions are too subjective. Who knows, I may have a subliminal predilection for ridges or tarns, which would raise hills with such features to artificially high gradings. What we are looking for is objective subjectivity. Many of the criteria overlap and influence another but there I see no means to make them mutually exclusive, although perhaps that is of little consequence.

In the meantime, I am going to crunch some numbers by experimenting with grading a range of hills and assessing the desired weight of each criteria to hopefully establish a base line that does not produce too many anomalies. We can then incorporate your suggestions and consider a designated level at which a hill becomes a Worthy. Perhaps we should also automatically include as Worthy any hill that excels in one particular category? This is a complicated operation!