In short: much harder than I imagined In full: Did hellrunner and grim 8 in 2004 and this was tougher than both. 3 hrs 27mins so think I might save my first marathon for a few years Date of review: February 13, 2005
In short: Once again a well organised, excellent race. The course is very challenging, and the wind made the going tough, but it was well worth doing as part of my marathon training. Date of review: February 13, 2005
In short: My first race.... and i HOPE others are better organised In full: I know this was a charity fundraiser - so one feels guilty saying anything negative. But the event was billed as a 10k road race, with water stations every KM, toilets, etc. It left a lot to be desired.
It was 4 laps of a route in Clapham Common.
First off - I'd say 75% was OFF road. I'd guess 600-800 runners, and you are told to start down a paved path no wider than 8 feet. So everyone spills onto the grass anyway. Then after 1/2 k or so, the route moved off the paved path anyway, across the grass. There were a couple of worn down running paths, but they were so muddy, most people stayed on the grass, which was slippry to start with, and by lap 4 was pretty awful at points. At about the 2/3 point on each lap, there was a tight turn around a building where everyone had to go through a mud patch inches deep - you just had to walk or risk taking people out.
Toilets (plural) were advertised. There was 1 toilet in the cafe. Later I heard people could use another in a separate bit of the park - but before the race, I saw nearly 50 people queuing for a single toilet with 1/2 hour to go before start...
Water was every lap - so every 2.5 km (not every KM as advertised) but this seemed fine.
Finally though, I remember reading that last years race was short. This being my first race, its hard to say, but I'd guess this was as well. First off you started about 200 m up from the finish, so 1 lap must have been a little short. BUt also, on a very windy day, very slippry and crowded, I finished 2 min ahead of what I expected. Did anyone else think this I wonder?
Overall, I think this falls under the category of good intentions, but not great execution. Again, its for charity, so can't be too critical, but as a race from a running perspective, I think it has a lot to be desired. Look at it more as a fun run. Date of review: February 13, 2005
In short: Too many laps, and stupid delay In full: The delay was annoying, enough said on that. The other problem was the number of laps - 3 is too many for such a short race with a field of wide ability. On the third lap there were almost constantly people in the way who did not allow the quicker runners to pass. 10k races should have a max of 2laps where the field is so wide. Those two things forgotten I quite enjoyed it. Date of review: February 13, 2005
In short: Another well organised Stamford, could do with some portaloos to ease the queues in the toilets. Marshalls were excellent, especially the ladies at the end as you turned back to the school( barking mad) Date of review: February 13, 2005
In short: Terrible race delay; organizer should be sacked. In full: What were they thinking delaying the race by 45 minutes in the cold? Whoever was in charge should never be allowed to organize another. Date of review: February 13, 2005
In short: A 'must-do' race when building up to a Spring marathon. Well organised as usual. Not the easiest event but completing this gives you a lot of confidence in how the training is going Date of review: February 13, 2005
In short: Good fun, but 2 hills and a lot of mud In full: Cracking race. Quite a challenge with 2 tough hills; the first is shorter but early in the race so an effort, the second is longer but you're in the swing of it. In 2005 it was a bit wintery with strong gusty winds, but that added to the challenge. Oh and the paths were a bit muddy! Date of review: February 13, 2005