Latest Ratings
| 1 to 7 of 7 ratings | Page: 1 |
2013 BHF Warwick Castle Half Marathon - SOLD OUT
 | | Overall score | | 40% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 20% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: worse medal & general planning ever In full: Fortunately we travelled up day before so walked to start from b&b so find' suffer the parking farce. But general organisation was a joke. Why we're family not allowed to start village when there was plenty of room. Then to have to pick up t shirt before race and had row with a steward who tried to stop me going outside the village to hand this to my wife! As for the medal it was by a long way the worse I've every had it does mention the event or distance or year on either the medal or the ribbon. On a positive note the course was good & challenging, support & stewards on the course we're really good. But a good race spoilt by cheapskate attitude to things like the medal & poor General organisation. Date of review: March 17, 2013
|
2013 Hampshire Chronicle Winchester 10K
 | | Overall score | | 40% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 40% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: Winchester???? New route needed In full: Having moved to Winchester a year ago I really love this city, what a missed chance to show off the city. The route just doesn't go near the city, should be called Worthy's 10K. The start is too congested and whilst it's a good challenging course it's just such a missed opportunity. The blurb says it's chip timed so it won't make any difference if your not at the front of the start when in fact it's gun start and chip finnish, so if your looking for a PB then ignore the stewards and get close to the front. It didn't make any difference to me but 20 seconds to get to the start is a lot if you're chasing a PB and the organisers should be honest about this. If your expecting to see Winchester whilst running then forget it. I'll probably do it again but only because it's local, wouldn't travel any distance. Date of review: February 24, 2013
|
2013 Hampshire Chronicle Romsey 5 Miles
 | | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Maybe | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 80% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 40% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: No expense spent!!! In full: Organised well and really good enjoyable course (and I got a great time, for me) but let down by being clearly done on the cheap to make as much money as possible.
Medal not even engraved just a standard medal with a printed sticker in the middle, no good bag, not even a bottle of water at the finish just a cup of water.
Really good run but came away feeling let down by the lack of "Extras" Suppose that's what you get with company organised event rather than running club ones.
Date of review: January 27, 2013
|
2012 Wilkins Kennedy Stockbridge10k
 | | Overall score | | 80% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 40% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 80% | | Value | | 80% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: Good organisation, nasty hill in the heat In full: Well organised, even if a couple of Km markers went missing. The hilly in the middle isn't nice goes on for ages, if your looking for a PB look elsewhere but a good challenging run.
Only very slight suggestion that a couple of portaloos in the car park at the start would have been helpful, otherwise excellent.
Date of review: September 9, 2012
|
2012 Bath Half-Marathon
 | | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Maybe | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 80% | | Atmosphere | | 100% | | Organisation | | 80% | | Value | | 40% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 100% |
In short: A bit disappointed In full: Support all the way around was fantastic, water stations & toilets well above average, but my overall impression was a bit disappointed mainly because of two of the main selling points of this race, "Baths wonderfull architecture" well apart from a small section around queens square the course seemed to have been purposely laid out to avoid the popular architectural areas. Secondly "Baths wide roads" however the reality is due to the two lap format on the first lap most people are compressed into half the road width. Even at my slow 2hr 10 min pace I spent the first lap dogging around people. Did the great south run last year twice as many people and nowhere near the same congestion.
The atmosphere , support and on the day organisation are first class but the course needs to be reviewed IMHO Date of review: March 12, 2012
|
2011 Bupa Great South Run 2011
 | | Overall score | | 80% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 80% | | Atmosphere | | 100% | | Organisation | | 100% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 80% |
In short: Great support = great organisation In full: Think the summary says it all, as my first mass event I thought the organisations was top class and the support around the course was outstanding. Pity the could do anything about the wind :-) Date of review: October 31, 2011
|
2011 Zoo Stampede (Whipsnade Zoo 10K)
 | | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Maybe | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 60% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: Enjoyable great to have the zoo as a different background In full: Well organised, good encouragement for us begginners all the way round. Didn't like the fact it was laps but that's just me.
My only gripe which would have increased my scores was the fact that partners etc had to pay full zoo entry price. I knoe=w they've got to make money but it would have been better to have a half price offer to supportersd etc.
Date of review: June 5, 2011
|

| |