Coventry 10KHere's how RW members rated this race in the past (13 votes). | 1 to 10 of 13 ratings | Page: 1 2 |
| The big picture (13 votes) | | Overall score | | 60% | | How many would do it again? | | 54% | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 77% | | PB potential | | 69% | | Atmosphere | | 54% | | Organisation | | 42% | | Value | | 65% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 74% |
|
|
2012 race reviewed by: Peter Reilly 3
 | | Overall score | | 40% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 80% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 20% | | Value | | 20% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 20% |
In full: Competed myself yesterday and shocked at the lack of organisation from
start to finish. Clearly a very busy public park, who had no idea the race was
taking place. Constantly battling dog walkers, non-race runners coming
towards myself and people out for a stroll.
Rarely felt like a race. More an intrusion of people's Sunday morning. Can only
imagine the results won't be up soon. Guy who finished behind me said; his
Garmin clocked 10.2 KM, which wouldn't surprise me either - Paid £11.50 to
register online, but had to collect my number before the race. Suppose £1.50 is for administrive costs (Postage, etc) and race-goers
paying on the day, paid £10. Don't really get that.
Only my third race, but easily the worst one yet! Also complaints from 2011
are all the troubles I faced. Quick learners I see. Imagine 2013 will be more of the same. ***AVOID***
Date of review: November 19, 2012
|
2012 race reviewed by: adam mitchell 9
| | Overall score | | 40% | | Would you do it again? | | Maybe | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 40% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In full: Too many obsticales in the way, dogs, bikes , other runners not in the race heading towards you.The course description says flat but its not , it has a good half of the course with gradual incline. medal and t- shirt not bad for a £10.
Date of review: November 19, 2012
|
2012 race reviewed by: Steve Rand 7
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Maybe | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 40% | | Value | | 40% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 80% |
In short: Not bad but but course was repetetive (3.5laps).
In full: Nice park (good advert for the 5k parkrun), price was reasonable, not enough signs for other park users (felt like I was on some kind of flashmob) dogs, grannies, bikes you name it we had to dodge round it.
Course was waaayy too repetetive (for me at least).
Date of review: November 19, 2012
|
2012 race reviewed by: Gary Smith 48
| | Overall score | | 40% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 20% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 100% |
In short: Poor organisation and too many obstacles to tackle eg: Dogs, Cyclists, Children and elderly Park users allowed to use the route.
In full: Poor organisation with Marshalls (that were a little sparse on the ground and the ones that were there not very well briefed. Too many other Park Users allowed to use the run route making it a little dangerous and I guess there will be complaints about this event locally.
Date of review: November 18, 2012
|
2011 race reviewed by: lyndsey orton
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 40% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 40% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: Described as flat... but it was anything but!
Date of review: November 26, 2011
|
2011 race reviewed by: Alex Janeti
| | Overall score | | 80% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 100% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 100% | | Organisation | | 40% | | Value | | 80% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 80% |
In short: Good friendly fun run did what it said on the tin
Date of review: November 25, 2011
|
2011 race reviewed by: Matthew hidge
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 40% | | Atmosphere | | 80% | | Organisation | | 60% | | Value | | 100% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 80% |
In short: Got a tshirt got a medal got a bit fitter
Date of review: November 25, 2011
|
2011 race reviewed by: Dowse
| | Overall score | | 20% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 80% | | Atmosphere | | 20% | | Organisation | | 20% | | Value | | 20% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 80% |
In short: Basic Mistakes Made by Organisers
In full: The course is 300m short, they didn't even manage to record my time and the overall organisation is shocking. This would have potential under different organisers. I complained, e-mail below...
Dear Mark,
I’m writing to you regarding the Coventry 10k Fun Run which I took part in.
Firstly, I achieved a time of X per my Garmin which would have put me in 8th place, however, I appear not to be in your list of finishers. I believe this is because the person at the finish line was having a chat rather than recording results. I have Garmin GPS data which can confirm my time and the course travelled. Runners X and X will also be able to confirm that I was at the race and completed it ahead of them. Please can you amend the published results ASAP.
Secondly, I’d like to express my disappointment with the event as a whole. Other than the fact that the race results are inaccurate, the most significant issue is that the course was only 9.7km long and not 10k as advertised. Other issues included:
- No kilometre markers
- Pre-event information poorly communicated
- No discount for UKA affiliated runners
- Winners presentations took place as and when rather than in a ceremony once the majority of runners had finished
- No pre race briefing
- General lack of organisation at the finish to keep the finishers separate from the people on other laps. A funnel was all that was necessary. This would have avoided missing runners altogether!!!
- Medals and t-shirts had to be requested on finishing rather than presented, although the fact that there were medals and t-shirts was unexpected and welcomed
- Results took 3 days to be published which was unnecessarily long
- Other users of the park were very inconsiderate, especially dog walkers. More marshals, signage and rope/tape barriers would help with this
Simple changes could have made this a very enjoyable event, however, as it was the organisation appeared shambolic with fundamental errors.
The race is advertised as a UKA Silver Graded event per Runners world. Please can you provide me with your UKA Race Licence Number and Certified Course Accuracy which are required to achieve this grading from BARR? If, as I suspect, you don’t actually have these then I suggest that you amend your runners world listings.
Date of review: November 23, 2011
|
2011 race reviewed by: Chris Algar
| | Overall score | | 40% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 80% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 20% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: One of the worst organised races this year for me - organised by event managers not runners?
In full: Good points:-
1.Nice public park
2.Great opportunity for PBs
3.Convenient car park
Bad Points:-
1.Poor organisation for runners support (registration on day was take name only (not club) and £10 note of course!)
2.Lack of marshalls
3.No KM markers on route
4.Poor finish organisation with timekeepers missing some finishers and no proper finish funnel
5.No warnings to dog walkers and pram pushers that race going on - Therefore General Public were confused and inconvenienced in this public park
Date of review: November 23, 2011
|
2011 race reviewed by: darren ward 7
| | Overall score | | 80% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 80% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 60% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 100% |
In short: a decent park course with pb potential
Date of review: November 22, 2011
|
| |
denotes Subscriber-only content | 
