Roding Valley Half MarathonHere's how RW members rated this race in the past (347 votes). 2006 race reviewed by: Pigbag
 | | Overall score | | 20% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 40% | | PB potential | | 40% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 20% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: The error over the extra distance is unforgiveable. Last time I do this one I'm afraid
In full: Whilst the apologies of the race director are appreciated, the cock up over the extra distance will put many faster runners off this race for good. The pre-race facilities were poor, with people squeezing into the clubhouse. Sadly the scenery was never going to compensate, making it a pretty miserable day out. There are plenty more half marathons to run at this time of year
Date of review: February 26, 2006
|
|
2006 race reviewed by: abbs
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Maybe | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 80% | | Organisation | | 40% | | Value | | 80% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: despite the added length, I found this a friendly and enjoyable race
In full: didn't look at my watch after 7 miles, but nevertheless was surprised to reach the finish in a slower time than I'd anticipated. The mystery was soon solved though, as the organisers owned up to an unintentional added extra 0.7 mile. Which means I probably did a pb, which is why I'm not too upset. I found this a really friendly race, with lots of support from marshals and other runners.
Date of review: February 26, 2006
|
2006 race reviewed by: Gubby Allen
| | Overall score | | 40% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 40% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 80% | | Organisation | | 40% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: The Roding Valley 14.1 mile Half Marathon
In full: Due to a cock-up by the marchsall & the lead car mile 7-8 was about 1.7 miles (and uphill & into the wind).
In my opinion, once the organisers realised this, the should have instructed all other marshalls (where possible) to let runners know they had ran an extra 0.7 mile, as many didn't have a clue & were left with nothing to run for or push themselves for in the latter stages. Their revised times may come out quite good.
Other than that, which may be handy in prep for London, having ran 14! I wasn't overly impressed.
The course was tricky & hard to get any fluency, constanly having to avoid cars beside you, pulling out of junctions, roadworks, over hanging thorn bushes, the drink stations weren't up to much, there wasn't any marker at the start (that I could see) and no drinks for the last 4 miles or at the finish line was disappointing. Even a small goody bag with something to eat wouldn't have gone a miss.
On the plus side, the support was good, the parking was good & the price was good & being able to enter on the day was excellent & well manned. And there were some gorgeous women running around my pace which made it easier.
But it will always be remembered for the cock up by the marshall & the stretch along by the David Lloyd centre & M11 really needed to be roped off to some degree. It was hard enough to fit one person down it.
Date of review: February 26, 2006
|
2006 race reviewed by: Anushka
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Maybe | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 60% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: cold, a bit hilly and the race was longer than shown on the map
In full: I just did the race today and when comparing it to the race map, realised that the second large loop was in fact longer than described on the map. It incorporated the first small loop again, when I'm not sure if it was suppoes to or not! I really hope I haven't run more than the necessary 13 miles!!
Date of review: February 26, 2006
|
2005 race reviewed by: Michael Bryant
| | Overall score | | 80% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 60% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: My first half - was fine, finish a little confusing and DM not 100% but can't really complain
Date of review: March 4, 2005
|
2005 race reviewed by: Brunswick
| | Overall score | | 100% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 40% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 80% | | Value | | 80% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 80% |
In short: Challenging, but well worth the effort.
In full: This certainly isn't the easiest or most picturesque half marathon course you'll ever see but if you like a challenging course that still has the potential to produce a good time if you're prepared to work for it, then this is a good one. Traffic can be a problem on some parts of the course (more of an annoyance than a real hinderance - just need to be careful)& an early start time isn't particularly convenient if you're not local but aside from that it's difficult to find fault with this race. I have run it for the last 4 years and will definitely be back for a 5th next year.
Date of review: March 4, 2005
|
2005 race reviewed by: Legless
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 40% | | PB potential | | 40% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 80% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: a good challenging 1/2 proir to FLM
Date of review: February 28, 2005
|
2005 race reviewed by: Helen Alexander 3
| | Overall score | | 100% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 40% | | Atmosphere | | 80% | | Organisation | | 80% | | Value | | 100% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: Hilly but so cold you had to run fast
Date of review: February 28, 2005
|
2005 race reviewed by: Faye Richards
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Maybe | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 40% | | PB potential | | 80% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 60% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 40% |
In short: Could have been so much better!
In full: Overall it wasn't a bad run, thank you to all the friendly marshalls and it was great to receive a medal rather than the usual t-shirt we get at a lot of races. However, I would have expected the organisation to be a lot better for such a reputable club..I was suprised that there was no baggage area, also the start and finish weren't clearly marked..especially the finish (I was heading towards the track!), there was no clock..and a cup of water wouldn't have gone a miss! Sorry to whinge but it just seemed like a lot of obvious things had been overlooked by the organisers.
Date of review: February 28, 2005
|
2005 race reviewed by: Hazel Clark
| | Overall score | | 40% | | Would you do it again? | | Maybe | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 40% | | PB potential | | 40% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 40% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 40% |
In short: Boring scenery, and didn;t like having to dodge pedestrians and cars
In full: A few more signs for people who have never been to that club or ran that race before, like 'toilets this way', 'baggage' etc etc. Most importantly a finish sign would have been helpful. I was in a small group of runners that kept going on the wrong side of the rope and had to climb under it to get our places noted. Not impressed with that race finish at all.
Date of review: February 28, 2005
|
| |
denotes Subscriber-only content | 
