Canterbury 10Here's how RW members rated this race in the past (143 votes). 2013 race reviewed by: Chugster
 | | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 100% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 80% | | Value | | 40% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: Great race but disapointed with a bag & cereal bar considering entry fee
In full: Race was very well organised and good atmosphere. Course is challenging but still enjoyable. Felt that a cheap bag and a cereal bar as "memento" was a bit pathetic.
Date of review: January 28, 2013
|
|
2013 race reviewed by: N Le-Faye
| | Overall score | | 100% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 100% | | PB potential | | 80% | | Atmosphere | | 100% | | Organisation | | 100% | | Value | | 80% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 80% |
In short: An excellent race
In full: Notwithstanding technical gripes about people wearing headphones (I don't do so but it is pretty common in all races these days, whether or not race regulations say it is prohibited) this is consistently an excellent race each year and really the classic 10 mile race. Excellent scenery, well organised and a course which is testing but interesting and fair. The school is an excellent start and finsih venue and the placing of the start and finish lines (which has moved around a bit in recent years) is now pretty much ideal. Certainly one that I will look forward to running next year, I only hope that we have such good weather. I quite liked the practicality of having a reasonably good quality bag as a momento rather than yet another medal, though I know medals are an essential for some.
Date of review: January 28, 2013
|
2013 race reviewed by: Andrew Carter 13
| | Overall score | | 40% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 60% | | Value | | 40% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 40% |
In short: Fails to obey BARR regulations
In full: Having run this race several times in very different conditions, today was not too exceptional, but to my biggest disappointment of how many runners was allowed to wear head phones. A club of this magnitude must be members of BARR and one of their regulations is that runners SHOULD NOT Run with headphones, especially as this is run on roads open to vehicle movement most of the way round.
I am a Race Director and I know that the running club I am a member of enforces this regulation of no headphones.
I will not run this race again purely because of this violation. Your club should adhere to health and safety regulations, as one runner next to me could not hear us tell her to get over because of the vehicle that was trying to over take us.
AC
Date of review: January 27, 2013
|
2013 race reviewed by: Carb loader
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Maybe | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 60% | | Value | | 40% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: No fuss, no frills, but a little pricey for a 10 mile race. Nice route, good support going through the villages and thankfully we could go around the ford, as it was fairly full!
In full: My third time at this race and to be honest I only raced today as it was a Club Champs, Kent Champs and Grand Prix race.
I felt it wasn't great value for money and for competing in a 10 mile undulating race personally I like to receive a medal. Whilst the bag may be useful, as a competitive club runner I'm afraid to say I won't be using my red Invicta East Kent branded bag. Had it just read 'Canterbury 10 mile 2013' then of course I would!
Date of review: January 27, 2013
|
2013 race reviewed by: Long Bones
| | Overall score | | 80% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 80% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 80% | | Value | | 40% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 80% |
In short: A good race to start the year.
In full: A good race, only the slightest of inclines throughout. As such it's a fairly quick course. Look out for the potholes. Results are up quickly. Good, safe bag storage and a good sized hall to contain the runners. No medal—if like that sort of thing.
For the first time in running I encountered an excessively aggressive runner. A little v50 tried to physically push me off the course because he was having trouble passing me. To him I'd like to say, don't be so unsporting. Run your own race, and don't interfere with mine.
Other than that it's a good race.
Date of review: January 27, 2013
|
2012 race reviewed by: racer dan
| | Overall score | | 80% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 60% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 80% |
In short: Good start to the running year!
In full: Love this race! done it for many years and hopefully will do it for many more. Only down side the last few years as been the finish area which needs sorting!
Date of review: December 16, 2012
|
2012 race reviewed by: Glen Abel
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 60% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 40% |
In short: Yep, too many runners, with too many narrow tracks. Also for me it was more hilly than uundulating, but I was badly out of shape. Couldn't understand why the finish was n next a van.
Date of review: June 12, 2012
|
2012 race reviewed by: Long Bones
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 80% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 60% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 80% |
In short: Fine. No particular thrills or downers. A good race to get the year started with.
In full: I'm reviewing somewhat retrospectively, but I had no problems with this race. It was pretty much what I expected. It's quite a fast course for those attempting a PB.
Date of review: April 11, 2012
|
2012 race reviewed by: Paul Metters
| | Overall score | | 40% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 40% | | Value | | 20% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: Badly organised race which offered little value for money.
In full: This race seemed to be badly organised, with too many runners.The HQ was over crowed, but admittedly this was larely due to the rain,but the car parking was inadequate for the size of the race. The start was also very over crowed with the large field running up the road towards parked cars. The course and marshalling overall was good, with a few hills. The finishing area and medal was disappointing, with runners having to help themselves to water, which when i finished due to the disorganisation went all over the floor.
Date of review: April 8, 2012
|
2012 race reviewed by: Jon Turtle
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 40% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: A good course with some nice views and friendly marshalls
In full: Despite advertising ample parking there was not enough so had to drive around looking for somewhere to park on the road making it a rush to collect chip and race number in a hall full of people milling around. Had to run to the start but got going on time.
The Finish was disappointing with a disorganised unmanned water station
Date of review: March 12, 2012
|
| |
denotes Subscriber-only content | 
