My Event Ratings

Overall score		100%
Would you do it again?		Yes
Details:
Scenery		100%
PB potential		20%
Atmosphere		80%
Organisation		100%
Value		100%
Beginner-friendliness		60%

In short: Great race, good organisation, really tough!
In full: Good race HQ with a friendly crowd - really tough course, my first off road but plenty of variety. Nice T Shirt and a specially badged bottle of beer were nice touches. Glad the sun was shining, the walk back to the carpark would have been miserable if it was raining.
Date of review: March 29, 2010

Report this rating to the moderator

Overall score		100%
Would you do it again?		Yes
Details:
Scenery		100%
PB potential		100%
Atmosphere		100%
Organisation		100%
Value		100%
Beginner-friendliness		100%

In short: Virtually faultless
In full: Great race, great organisation, a PB, really funny feedback on RW (for sale signs and the cutting in runners!!!) I enjoyed it, well done Hinckley.

Date of review: May 11, 2009

Report this rating to the moderator

Overall score		100%
Would you do it again?		Yes
Details:
Scenery		100%
PB potential		100%
Atmosphere		80%
Organisation		100%
Value		80%
Beginner-friendliness		80%

In short: Good value!
In full: Parked 1/2 mile from start for £3.00. Start could have been better - didn't notice any handicapping but a on a long race doesn't matter much. Awesome marshalling and drinks stations - as good if not better than London. Support good in the town. The greenway is a grind but better to run on a track than a road with cars buzzing you! Raised money for charity too! Nice one Stratford.
Date of review: April 26, 2009

Report this rating to the moderator

Overall score		40%
Would you do it again?		Yes
Details:
Scenery		80%
PB potential		60%
Atmosphere		60%
Organisation		20%
Value		60%
Beginner-friendliness		60%

In short: Organisation let it down
In full: It's a good course attracting some decent runners, I managed a PB but I'm afraid Glos AC let the runners and the City down. Garmin measured the course 20.20 (even better pb!), Poor instructions (see previous entries) an ineffective megaphone (people talking over the 1 minute's silence as they couldn't hear the instructions, oh, & coincidentally got warned for running more than two abreast). I had the rudest response to an email query that I sent to the race organiser beforehand and gave him the benefit of the doubt - but fellow runners seem to bear testimony to the fact that this could have been better.
Date of review: March 8, 2009

Report this rating to the moderator

Overall score		100%
Would you do it again?		Yes
Details:
Scenery		80%
PB potential		80%
Atmosphere		80%
Organisation		100%
Value		80%
Beginner-friendliness		100%

In short: Superb Race
In full: Great organsiation,course and atmosphere - well done to the organisers.
Date of review: December 19, 2008

Report this rating to the moderator

Overall score		40%
Would you do it again?		Yes
Details:
Scenery		60%
PB potential		60%
Atmosphere		40%
Organisation		20%
Value		60%
Beginner-friendliness		60%

In short: The Council did a better job!
In full: Traffic queues were worse than normal.
No marshalling/advice at the start & the chip tent was poorly organised.
Bogs were useless but that's standard.
The start was dreadful - no speed markers so slower runners were mixed with quicker ones at the start and at the back.
No PA.
The famous first water station - I reckon it was for the 5 mile race and as it was so hot the 1/2m runners went for it! Better service at the other stations but worrying to hear that they ran out. The start & finish were rough - I saw Mick & Phil struggling through the long grass - not good.
All in all a poorly organised race, good crowds and fellow runners. A poor show by 2:09. I'll only do it again next year because it's local.
Date of review: May 11, 2008

Report this rating to the moderator

Overall score		100%
Would you do it again?		Yes
Details:
Scenery		100%
PB potential		60%
Atmosphere		80%
Organisation		80%
Value		80%
Beginner-friendliness		80%

In short: Virtually faultless
In full: Would have dropped the virtually if the start had have been 10am prompt as promised - it was delayed 15 mins for latesters. Apart from that it was great - a reasonably tough course, good support considering the conditions, great organisation thanks to the Cadets & other volunteers and a decent medal. Also good that it wasn't just the top 3 that got special awards.
Date of review: March 16, 2008

Report this rating to the moderator

Overall score		80%
Would you do it again?		Yes
Details:
Scenery		80%
PB potential		60%
Atmosphere		80%
Organisation		80%
Value		80%
Beginner-friendliness		60%

In short: Exceeded expectations
In full: Injured last weekend so everyone (including me) said "take it easy". I planned on an easy sub 3.00 and manged sub 2.4o.
I thought it was a good course and the runner who remarked about the "rules". One of them was don't use the start area as a toilet- hadly unreasonable!
Some cars were taking it a bit quick around the lanes but it was good to slow tractors and horse boxes down - and I kept to the left throughout!
Well done Glos AC
Date of review: March 2, 2008

Report this rating to the moderator

Overall score		80%
Would you do it again?		Maybe
Details:
Scenery		80%
PB potential		100%
Atmosphere		80%
Organisation		80%
Value		60%
Beginner-friendliness		80%

In short: Stop whinging!
In full: Some selected quotes - "Slow start, no chips, congestion, poor water stations, no energy drinks!" - some people are never happy. I thought it was great - well done to all the organisers & thanks for another PB
Date of review: February 10, 2008

Report this rating to the moderator

Overall score		100%
Would you do it again?		Yes
Details:
Scenery		100%
PB potential		80%
Atmosphere		80%
Organisation		80%
Value		100%
Beginner-friendliness		80%

In short: Great value and a great course
In full: Good organisation, marshalling & finish - pretty and interesting course. With the hills thought that there was no chance of a PB but only missed it by one minute. Definitely be back next year to beat it. Thanks to all the organisers & volunteers
Date of review: November 26, 2007

Report this rating to the moderator