effect on marathons if the Boston qualifying system didn't exist.

Well aren't you special.

Stick with eharrnony wrote:

Well aren't you special.

Not at all. I am just asking whether the absence of the qualifying time "benchmark" (suppose Boston became a lottery entry) would result in fewer people doing marathons more than once.

almostbq wrote:

If the Boston qualifying time didn't exist, would repeat participation in marathons drop significantly?

Without such a benchmark, would more people just do a marathon once and consider it bucket list without any specific goal beyond "just finish"?

This is not a whining post about the standards at Boston. I ran it for the first time this year having qualified after years of trying. I didn't consider it the course particularly extraordinary and probably will limit myself to this one time.

It's the old story of the turquoise jeweler who accidentally doubled the price of the jewelry instead of halving it - as a result the jewelry sold out right away. Simply putting a higher price on something puts a high "value" in people's mind without and evidence of it actually having the high value. Having to qualify etc. makes people believe that there is some extra "value" to running Boston.

You are right, Boston is not a stand out course. I think the only reason to run it is if you need to tell people that you have run Boston, for whatever that is actually worth. I've run far more marathons after I ran Boston than before, and I can see no reason to ever go back. It was a bucket list thing that I only realized shouldn't have been on the list when I did it. I know a lot of people who feel the same way. Just not worth the journey etc. for that course, unless you have that need to say you did it.

I agree that Boston gets hype partly because it has a qualifying time. Even if just NY had a qualifying time, it would lessen the prestige of Boston.

I disagree about the course. I think that it is a uniquely challenging course. it is not a pancake flat course that you can run fast on and it rewards the mentally tough over the weak. If you're not ready for it, it will bury you and I like that about it.

The qualifying standard does have an impact on many marathons. Races like mountains to Beach advertise that a lot of runners in their race qualify for Boston. It sells out quickly and has a long waiting list.

I bet a lot f people run at st George to get a bq time.

I really enjoyed my experience in Boston and see the draw and it has nothing about impressing others. I like the city and the course and crowd support and thought it very organized event. And the volunteers were awesome. How do they get so many supportive people out there?

Twice a day wrote:

The qualifying standard does have an impact on many marathons. Races like mountains to Beach advertise that a lot of runners in their race qualify for Boston. It sells out quickly and has a long waiting list.

I bet a lot f people run at st George to get a bq time.

I really enjoyed my experience in Boston and see the draw and it has nothing about impressing others. I like the city and the course and crowd support and thought it very organized event. And the volunteers were awesome. How do they get so many supportive people out there?

Exactly. I don't think St George and the other races like it in Utah would survive without the Boston qualifying standard being "out there".

E.g. without the BQ standard, "Travel to Utah to run downhill, why?"

It is the oldest continuously run marathon with 1 million spectators to cheer you on that has set standards for qualifying.

Plainly, it is the benchmark for American Marathons.

You can degrade it all you like, but in the end you are the one who appears foolish.

br0ski wrote:

I agree that Boston gets hype partly because it has a qualifying time. Even if just NY had a qualifying time, it would lessen the prestige of Boston.

NY does have a qualifying time that allows one guaranteed entry thus bypassing the low probability of getting in through the lottery. Chicago is going to a similar system this year.

Also, I don't interpret the question as whether Boston would have the same cachet, rather whether a significant number of people continue as marathoners after their first, motivated by the goal of achieving the BQ standard. From personal experience it was a motivating factor and I look upon it as an important milestone even though I significantly improved my PRs well after achieving the BQ. I'd guess that motivated runners will find their motivation one way or the other, but for quite a few, Boston is a goal.

been there done that wrote:

It is the oldest continuously run marathon with 1 million spectators to cheer you on that has set standards for qualifying.

Plainly, it is the benchmark for American Marathons.

You can degrade it all you like, but in the end you are the one who appears foolish.

Oh please. The subjective value or lack thereof that someone places on a particular experience is an indication of neither wisdom nor foolishness.

But in NY you can get in without running for a charity or reaching qualifying through the lottery, it doesn't offer the same reward. Boston also has more attainable qualifying times due to this and you can't qualify through a HM like in NY.

I think that the cachet of Boston is the reason that it is a goal for so many. I don't think significantly less people would run marathons. I think that instead of wanting to "get your BQ" you would want to "run sub 3" or 3:30. BQ is simply a stand in for these time goals that we have.

Most runners outside North America don't even know there are qualifying standards for Boston, yet marathon running seems to be popular enough.