Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi folks,


I'm new to the area and looking for a running club to train and race with. I've found information about Dulwich Runners and Dulwich Park Runners. Has anyone had experience with these clubs? Would you be able to advise me which is a better club to join for someone who is looking for good quality training to increase my speed in the context of a social and competitive club.


Thanks,


James.

I used to run with Dulwich Park Runners, who cater for a real range of abilities, but as the membership was high there were always different groups covering different distances and at varying paces. They did speedwork once a week when I went, although it's about 6 years ago now.


I entered a lot of races with them, there were some very serious runners, and the social side was great.


My feeling was always that Dulwich Runners were a more serious club, but still a sociable group.


Why not go along to each and join them for a run to see how you feel?

Inspire a generation Pickle...



Pickle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> p.s... Help-Ma-Boab, you are truly inspirational.

> I only hope that one day I can manage a 33 minute

> mile ;) did that include drinking time?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...