Milford 21 Here's how RW members rated this race in the past (26 votes). | 1 to 6 of 6 ratings | Page: 1 |
| The big picture 2006 (6 votes) | | Overall score | | 90% | | How many would do it again? | | 100% | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 90% | | PB potential | | 40% | | Atmosphere | | 70% | | Organisation | | 73% | | Value | | 77% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 40% |
|
|
2006 race reviewed by: mango
 | | Overall score | | 80% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 100% | | PB potential | | 40% | | Atmosphere | | 80% | | Organisation | | 80% | | Value | | 80% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: A tough( distance) and testing (switchback hills)race which gives you a huge buzz on completion . Date of review: March 13, 2006
|
2006 race reviewed by: Lesley Kirk
 | | Overall score | | 80% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 40% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 60% | | Value | | 80% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 40% |
In short: Fantastic off-road race, not for the faint-hearted. Could do with water stations every five miles In full: The overnight snow made the hills (and even some of the flat bits!) tricky, especially on the descents. Quite a drain on the legs and the final hill less than a mile from the end really gets to you. Disappointed not to have hot drinks available at the finish. I'm sure there was tea and hot chocolate last year. Wouldn't put me of doing it again though. Date of review: March 9, 2006
|
2006 race reviewed by: Simon Alcock
 | | Overall score | | 100% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 40% | | Atmosphere | | 80% | | Organisation | | 80% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 40% |
In short: Had a the worst run I've had for years, took me totally by surprise as I regularly train for 20m over Cannock Chase. Finished 30 mins later than I planned. Still a great race though. Not too keen on the horse brass - make it a tee shirt next year ?? Date of review: March 6, 2006
|
2006 race reviewed by: tomb raider
 | | Overall score | | 100% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 100% | | PB potential | | 40% | | Atmosphere | | 80% | | Organisation | | 100% | | Value | | 80% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 20% |
In short: What a great race, great marshalls. In full: A really enjoyable race, very well organised and marshalled even enjoyed the switchbacks in a strange sort of way. The relief at the top of that last one and then to see the finish. Could do with a couple more water points and a t-shirt for this would certainly be worn with pride. Date of review: March 6, 2006
|
2006 race reviewed by: billo
 | | Overall score | | 80% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 40% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 60% | | Value | | 80% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 20% |
In short: A tough off road challenge for longer distance runners In full: 21 miles around Cannock Chase following a sawdust trail. There are usually only around 150 brave souls so the gaps do open up. After a bumpy and hilly first 800 metres it all seems pretty easy for the next few miles along flat well made tracks. It gradually gets more off road until you hit the dreaded 'switchbacks' at around halfway (short steep muddy climbs followed by perilous descents). Most runners are reduced to walking. The surface gets easier after this, but the damage has been done. A final sting in the tail is another climb in the last mile. Not for beginners, but great fun if you are up for a challenge. Date of review: March 5, 2006
|
2006 race reviewed by: Andy_Sol
 | | Overall score | | 100% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 100% | | PB potential | | 40% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 60% | | Value | | 80% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: Having never raced more than 10K before I was a little apprehensive. Although tough, I enjoyed it many fold over the 10K's. Will be back next year. Date of review: March 5, 2006
|

| |