In short: Hilly but strangely could be quick. In full: My slowest ever time, but blame Christmas, not the course. Some runners weren't very helpful to local traffic and I wasn't surprised when motorists got a little angry. I enjoyed the race, despite my time, and would do it again. Was I the only person who didn't think last 1k was that far? Date of review: February 20, 2011
In full: After reading last years reviews i wasn't sure but decided to give it a go, fairly hilly but ad a couple of good downhills to make up for it. Even the finishing 1k was downhill slightly which helped. I got a pb against other 10kms that i have run so couldnt have been that bad! Will def be back next year to have another go! Date of review: February 20, 2011
In short: Great 10k - no idea what people were moaning about last year In full: One of the more challenging 10ks I've done - but it's a pleasant, varied route and Winchester isn't exactly the place for flat racing. Good mix of club and non-club runners, well-marshalled, and the lack of road closures wasn't a problem (for the front end of the field, at least). Unless an awful lot has changed, I can't really imagine what everyone was moaning about last year. Yep, the last 200m on shingles slows you down slightly, but it's the same for everyone and not exactly a pit of quicksand. And yep, we'd all prefer not to start on a field, but if that's what's needed to make up the distance, then so be it. If it gets any bigger, time markers will be handy at the front, but overall I really enjoyed this one, and dipped under 40 minutes for the first time to boot. Date of review: February 20, 2011
In short: Fun, challenging course, but with a few organisational tweaks could be great! In full: I enjoyed this morning's run -- good atmosphere, friendly competitiveness, and a tough, hilly course.
But if only a few things were changed, this could become a really good race. For example, the start was atrocious -- cramped, muddy, dangerous, and it took me over a minute to cross the start line. That's all well and good, but to improve things I'd suggest start-->finish chip-timing. This would allow for the start to be more spread out, and offer also the potential for graded starts based on estimated race times. With these two changes alone the start would become more relaxed, safer, and faster for all. Given the entry cost, I don't think this is unreasonable.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed it, and as it's one of my local races, I'll be back for more!! Date of review: February 20, 2011
In short: This was my very first race and although I enjoyed the course and the challenge I expected more.The organisation was really poor start and finish were dreadful and whats the point of a chip timer that doesn't work at the start? In full: This has the potential to be a really great 10k if only the organisation was better,because let's face it guys it was dreadful from before the start to after the finish.If you're going to charge that much for it then at least give some value for money.I'm looking forward to other races to see how it should be done i'll be back next year to hopefully see some improvements. Date of review: February 27, 2010
In full: this was my first time running this race,i did enjoy the run itself although very hilly.I would also agree with some of the other ratings about the start and finish not being very good.think i may try again next yr but i would like to know why the chip times were not used in the results,anybody know??????????? Date of review: February 24, 2010
In short: What a Shame In full: What a mess , the start was poor ,"NO BAG DROP" the course it's self was okay, the finish was a joke . I tried to run on the path just to the right of shingle at the finish and was directed back onto the shingle.
I dont mind paying for races and understand that the organisers work long and hard to make it happen and for this we thank you.
This race however had the feeling of total lack of care for runners .Will I be back next year maybe but maybe not !!