Asics Watford Half MarathonHere's how RW members rated this race in the past (878 votes). 2013 race reviewed by: Avril Riddell
 | | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 80% | | Organisation | | 40% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 80% |
In short: Goody bag lacking food. Prize giving disorganised
Date of review: February 5, 2013
|
|
2013 race reviewed by: aimingforahalf
| | Overall score | | 80% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 100% | | PB potential | | 40% | | Atmosphere | | 80% | | Organisation | | 80% | | Value | | 80% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 40% |
In short: Great race, hilly challenge, lots of marshalls, water stations were not signed posted well enough in advance and the sponge staation was not great at the back of hte pack. Good T shirt, not fussed on a medal, but a banana or mars bar would be good
In full: Marshalls super, water stops the water was very small - had to ask for 2 cups each time, no food at end - the Ricky road run has it sussed for food.
Date of review: February 5, 2013
|
2013 race reviewed by: rundomrun
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Maybe | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 40% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: Nice scenic countryside, but no medal and no goody bag or appropriate sized t-shirt if you're at the back end of the pack.
Date of review: February 5, 2013
|
2013 race reviewed by: Boggle
| | Overall score | | 80% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 80% | | Organisation | | 80% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 80% |
In short: Where's the banana?
In full: Nice race, well organised, pleasant route, even the weather was good, good preparation for Berkhamsted.
But really - at the end you need a quick bit of nutrition - either a banana or a chewy/cereal bar. Medal is pointless, T-shirt is OK but I have a lot of them, what I need is 25p worth of food! That can't be so hard to arrange can it? I'm sure there was something in 2011.
Date of review: February 5, 2013
|
2013 race reviewed by: A-Train
| | Overall score | | 80% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 80% | | Organisation | | 80% | | Value | | 80% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: Pretty good
In full: Very accessible on public transport. Well organised. A medal would be good
Date of review: February 4, 2013
|
2013 race reviewed by: D M S
| | Overall score | | 80% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 60% | | Value | | 80% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 80% |
In short: Fine
In full: No real complaints. Nice scenery, well-organised. Hills steep but not too long. Not too fussed by the medal; t-shirt more than compensates but certainly would have liked a cereal bar or similar at the end!
Date of review: February 4, 2013
|
2013 race reviewed by: Annie Porter
| | Overall score | | 80% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 80% | | Atmosphere | | 80% | | Organisation | | 100% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 40% |
In short: Cheeky little hills!
In full: Personally loved it but then I love them hills! A good test of endurance in the run up to Spring marathons - more testing than Wokingham but surprisingly fast. A really strong field of runners, wasn't that chuffed to be told by a marshall at the half way mark that the winner had already romped home but on the whole the marshalls were really friendly...I felt for them in that cold! Set up was great, which you'd expect for £25, but the goodie bags were rubbish. Mars Bar or a banana would have been nice...despite all that was chuffed with my time and will definitely be back!
Date of review: February 4, 2013
|
2013 race reviewed by: HuwH
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Maybe | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 40% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 80% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 80% |
In short: Hills, hills, hills, but well organised
In full: Well I should have known better being that I run with one of the watford clubs but the course was a lot harder than I remembered it to be. Those hills keeping coming meaning you have to keep the pace even all the way through. Liked the marquee and set up in the park was well done. A little disappointed by the goody bag. Best just stick with a t-shirt and drink next year. Signage for the water station needs improving and little annoyed that the sponge station was signed as a drinks station leaving quite a few annoyed and frustrated runners around me. Marshalls were great but then I was wearing the right colours!
Date of review: February 4, 2013
|
2013 race reviewed by: Ray Sin
| | Overall score | | 80% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 80% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: Good course, good marshals, good effort.
Date of review: February 4, 2013
|
2013 race reviewed by: Andrew Fish 8
| | Overall score | | 80% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 80% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 80% | | Value | | 40% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: Where's the MEDAL
In full: Really good run - even managed a PB with the hills!! Marshalls were great and no issue with water stations.
Only grumble is where is the medal. If it were a choice between medal or running top I would go for the medal! Also 'goody bag' was not quite goody! There are alot of races all over the country therefore race organisers need to make sure they are providing value for money. I would class this as a 6/10 for value for money.
Date of review: February 4, 2013
|
| |
denotes Subscriber-only content | 
