What would happen if Boston did completely away with qualifying times?

Among non-runners, "Boston Marathon" is practically synonymous with "Marathon". The qualification standards don't have much to do with it. That said, like a lot of mega-marathons in recent years, the demand for the race far exceeds it's capacity so the qualification standards are one way to limit applicants. If it were the qualification standard per se that created the demand, you'd expect the Gansett Marathon to have taken off much more than it has.

AlmostBQ wrote:

I'm just wondering whether now, in light of so many other marathons now being available, whether Boston w/o any qualifying time would find itself diminishing in popularity after a few years, as the course is not particularly remarkable and it's expensive to go to etc.

The Philadelphia Marathon is expecting to sell out this year with a field size of 27,000. I don't think it's a particularly famous race, it just happens to be within half a day's drive of a whole bunch of people.

Citizen Runner wrote:

Among non-runners, "Boston Marathon" is practically synonymous with "Marathon". The qualification standards don't have much to do with it. That said, like a lot of mega-marathons in recent years, the demand for the race far exceeds it's capacity so the qualification standards are one way to limit applicants. If it were the qualification standard per se that created the demand, you'd expect the Gansett Marathon to have taken off much more than it has.

Gansett suffers from limited marketing.

AlmostBQ wrote:

Gansett suffers from limited marketing.

It suffers from more than that.

Hopkinton wrote:

AlmostBQ wrote:

Gansett suffers from limited marketing.

It suffers from more than that.

Dysentery?

Hopkinton wrote:

AlmostBQ wrote:

Gansett suffers from limited marketing.

It suffers from more than that.

Elaborate on this please.

Pat Riots wrote:

random a hole wrote:

At first I thought you were expressing a strongly held opinion, but then you pointed out how it is an unqualified truth. Thanks for doing so.

You got it! Use it sparingly, but use it correctly.

I just tried it on another thread, worked very nicely, thanks.

New York seems to have a good setup - guaranteed entries, lottery, etc. they have too many exceptions though so the lottery is really pretty limited. Even so, they generate a lot of excitement around the process. I haven't BQd either, but got a New York guaranteed entry (HM time) and it's considered a pretty decent milestone among my runner friends. Boston might as well follow the same model. When someone brags about going to Boston, I have no idea how they got in, so the "prestige" is already diminished.

AlmostBQ wrote:

Take a look at the number of runners entered into the Boston marathon in years until 1966, a few hundred at most.

http://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/boston-marathon-history/participation.aspx

Granted, there were a limited number of marathons in place then in the US, Boston, Yonkers, Heart of America, Philadelphia, Atlantic City, Long Island to name a few of a handful.

I don't find the course to be aesthetically interesting. It follows a historic route and has the screaming crowds on race day, but beyond that- it seems bland. Contrast with Marine Corps in DC, which has notable landmarks from start to finish.

Regarding the number of entrants, again you display your lack of knowledge regarding Boston's history as well as running in general. Look up "running boom" as well as the history of Boston qualifying requirements.

As for the course, you admit Boston has a "historic route" while touting the landmarks along the DC route. Do you not see your own contradiction?

honestly it is already diminished with these people running 330s because boston is a hard course and they dont know how to run it. qualifying standards should be 250 for men and 320 for women.

Huh? wrote:

[quote]AlmostBQ wrote:

Take a look at the number of runners entered into the Boston marathon in years until 1966, a few hundred at most.

Regarding the number of entrants, again you display your lack of knowledge regarding Boston's history as well as running in general. Look up "running boom" as well as the history of Boston qualifying requirements.

As for the course, you admit Boston has a "historic route" while touting the landmarks along the DC route. Do you not see your own contradiction?

In referring to Boston being historic, I was using it in the context of it being the oldest continuously run marathon that has followed the same course (for the most part) for 116 years (with changes to the start and finish areas).

Boston had a few hundred registered runners participate prior to 1967. You've suggested Jock Semple had a hand in that, requiring each would be runner to explain why he wanted to be in the race. Marathon running was just not a widely popular event back then.

Probably the same as Auckland Marathon here in New Zealand.

Auckland Marathon and half marathon sold out in 1 week, and thats with a population of only 4 million in NZ. I imagine that boston would be considerably worse considering the huge difference in the population and the fact that boston is a marathon major.

Would just result in mayhem and people sitting on the computer and thwe people with the fastest fingers getting the enteries instead of those who deserved them. So many people missed out of Auckland.

There would be 100,000 entrants and the greedy organizers would let them all in.

Huh?

Much of Boston's mystique is the qualifying standards--regardless of their origins. Boston could do away with the qualifying standards and they'd still sell out.

For the vast majority of runners, big-city marathons are not races--they're events. After all, who but those in the first few corrals have any shot at running a decent race? It's sardines the whole way.