The BQ thing is getting weird. A guy bragged to me about purchasing $500 shoes and spending $4,000 on flight/hotel to run Mt. Charleston just to nab a BQ.
-
331
-
minong wrote:
By the way, I'm aware of a couple of races that are significantly downhill, in the 2000ft range. But is there a race that is actually over 6000ft? That actually sounds like an awful experience, I don't care how fast you run.
Bombing downhill is not as bad as it sounds anymore now that everyone also has 40mm foam supershoes. There's a couple with over 5,000ft drop but I don't think there's one with 6000ft.
91 -
I agree! There are so many online running "coaches" who claim all these downhill PRs and use the difference between PRs as a testimony to their great programs. It drives me nuts.
260 -
I bet they will come up with new courses that are just under 1500ft of loss.
190 -
minong wrote:
Basically 1500-2999 feet net downhill, you'll need to run another 5 minutes faster (5 minutes is added to your race time). If the race is 3000-5999 net downhill, it's 10 minutes. And greater than 6000 feet it's no longer eligible at all. See the press release here:
Looks like 24 US races will be affected. 17 in the 5 minute range and 7 in the +10 group.
Only one of the Revel races is not in the +10 group - White Mountains.
I wonder if some of the ones that are close to the cutoffs will change their courses to meet the new standards.150 -
I just noticed they also got rid of the loophole week in September where you could use the same race to qualify for two consecutive Bostons. There's no longer any overlap in the qualification window, which will hurt Erie and some other races.
The new downhill policy will also affect some people who already ran their cheater marathons and thought they had a safe BQ time. Gonna be some pissed off runners!
251 -
Thoughts on how much this will raise the time you would actually need because of penalties and others trying to qualify on slower courses now?
Add 5 minutes for an elevation course, but also add a couple minutes to the time you actually need so it nets out at you have to be 3 minutes faster at St. George, for example?
20 -
1499 wrote:
I bet they will come up with new courses that are just under 1500ft of loss.
My thought as well. Still this is a much needed change. I could see BAA dropping from 1500 to 1k or even 500 in a few years.
122 -
ShoeTubersHaveNoEthics wrote:
I think this happened because of the Atlanta Marathon fiasco, where they aren't able to take people who ran 26.1 miles on a tough course. The unfairness of letting somebody who bombed 4,500 feet down Mount Charleston or Big Bear or Snoqualmie Pass really was pretty stark because of that.
1,500 feet is a lot. There are super fast courses like Mesa and Rogue Valley/Medford that are less than 1,500 feet net downhill. A 3% gradient is worth 24 seconds per mile.
I think the elevation requirements are interesting. The research I have seen shows 8 seconds per mile per one percent of grade. Mount Charleston has a 4% grade, so that's 32 seconds per mile or basically 14 minutes (actual math is 13:59). So even with the penalty, Revel Mount Charleston is still worth 4 minutes over a flat course.
What I think this will do is kill races at the bottom end of the penalties, have a race with 1,608 feet net drop? Nobody will run that when they could run a race with 2,999 feet net drop and incur the same penalty. This will also cause races in places like western New York, New Hampshire and North Carolina, where people can run gentle decline 1,498 feet courses to pop up.
It's a start but will probably be adjusted after the first year. I am glad that this tells me that Boston isn't going to cut times again. With them getting to 2:55 for open athletes, too many people are pushing the limits and/or resorting to performance enhancing drugs to qualify.
Here's hoping that they require races to have random drug testing in the near future. Too many bros watching Matt Choi, the Jeans Guy and other fitness influencers likely on steroids are taking them without thinking about long-term health impacts.
1,500 feet over a marathon is 57 feet per mile or a 1.1% grade, not 3%. Worth about five minutes or 11 seconds per mile for a three hour marathoner, according to the Runworks calculator.
141 -
finally wrote:
The new downhill policy will also affect some people who already ran their cheater marathons and thought they had a safe BQ time. Gonna be some pissed off runners!
It doesn't apply until 2027 so those guys are still OK.
110 -
I'm a little surprised they did straight time add instead of a ramp. Though I guess this is easier to figure out in real time instead of doing extra math.
30 -
BearWhale wrote:
The BQ thing is getting weird. A guy bragged to me about purchasing $500 shoes and spending $4,000 on flight/hotel to run Mt. Charleston just to nab a BQ.
I saw a guy who did something similar. His strava he only wears bandit and runs like 35-40 mi/week. also was near back of the McKirdy half marathon or whatever in upstate new york. my favorite part is he only ran like 2:54:xx at that race so also has next to no chance to actually make boston
36 -
run2lose wrote:
I'm a little surprised they did straight time add instead of a ramp. Though I guess this is easier to figure out in real time instead of doing extra math.
This simplifies things for both runners and especially the BAA. There are hundreds of qualifying races they now have to determine elevation drops for, by doing it this way they only have to scrutinize the few races that are right on the edge of an elevation cutoff.
80 -
finally wrote:
run2lose wrote:
I'm a little surprised they did straight time add instead of a ramp. Though I guess this is easier to figure out in real time instead of doing extra math.
This simplifies things for both runners and especially the BAA. There are hundreds of qualifying races they now have to determine elevation drops for, by doing it this way they only have to scrutinize the few races that are right on the edge of an elevation cutoff.
They could have done a formula that would cover any drop, but this is more simple
41 -
no scooped bagels wrote:
BearWhale wrote:
The BQ thing is getting weird. A guy bragged to me about purchasing $500 shoes and spending $4,000 on flight/hotel to run Mt. Charleston just to nab a BQ.
I saw a guy who did something similar. His strava he only wears bandit and runs like 35-40 mi/week. also was near back of the McKirdy half marathon or whatever in upstate new york. my favorite part is he only ran like 2:54:xx at that race so also has next to no chance to actually make boston
McKirdy is a flat crit style race. It will still be allowed I suspect.
100 -
I'd pick Mesa simply due to the fact that the Phx course is absolutely terrible. Gunshots running down 35th ave would probably be good for a few minutes though.
101 -
This is going to cause the most headaches for Utah runners. Most of the local big marathons are on the time-adjusted list, and so are some nearby marathons in Arizona/Nevada/Idaho.
70 -
Great, when do I get my five minutes off for running in Denver? People who run at sea level are wimps who couldn't qualify in a real marathon.
614 -
Salt Lake is good, and Ogden drops 1142 feet, so that one is great under the new system. I bet they both get a popularity surge, but especially Ogden
90 -
Working Harder wrote:
I'd pick Mesa simply due to the fact that the Phx course is absolutely terrible. Gunshots running down 35th ave would probably be good for a few minutes though.
The late hill there scares me, but do I have even more to be scared of?
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.