Huh?? As if people who can barely qualify as it is are going to run faster just because they know they'll need a faster time? Just run your best, regardless of whether that qualifies you to run in the Hobbyjogger Olympic marathon.
a sidebar wrote:
Whatever the new standards will be (if they do make the standards tougher), they should announce the new stanards as soon as possible so people running a marathon in the coming weeks know what they will need to run to qualify.
My take on it wrote:
Luckily for you no one has gone sub 2 yet, so sub 3 is within an hour and you're not a hobby jogger. Cheers!
No, you are just a better hobby jogger.
What about not being able to run for two years in a row based upon only one qualifying time. I understand that if you did not get in the first year your qualifying time should be extended to the second, but I think there are a lot of people running two years in a row with only one qualifying race.
They've got years upon years of qualifying times and I'm sure they could pump out some statistics... I'm willing to to bet that 60-80% of the boston qualifying times are within 5 minutes of the standard...
I don't think making it more difficult would "ruin" it... in fact, I think it would be good for it, strictly because it's gotten to a point where it's watered down... if more and more people are able to qualify, then the exclusivity of running Boston drops... It's probably in their best interest to make the qualifying standards faster.
Also, it gives people who haven't hit the standard a little extra time to get another marathon in (if it doesn't sell out in 8 hours)...
The idea of an A qualifier and B qualifier is an idea...
I don't know what you would make as the times (maybe keep the B time the current for men/women), but you would open the registration to the A qualifiers first for a certain amount of time, say two weeks, before opening it up to the B qualifiers, as well.
If it fills up/sells out with A qualifiers, then Oh well! Maybe it would be a motivator to the B qualifiers to run faster the next time.
Just an idea...
What would that really accomplish that just the A qualifier alone wouldn't?
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot wrote:
What would that really accomplish that just the A qualifier alone wouldn't?
The B qualifier would help ensure the field reaches its capacity size (and satisfy the BAA). Get all the A qualifiers in (those that actually want to race Boston that year), and then fill the remaining spots with B qualifiers.
Of course, if the A qualifier is not strict enough, then yeah, there would be no need for a B qualifier...
So...women can be in the 3:20s and NOT be hobbyjoggers? Clarify, please.Face it: most of us are hobbyjoggers.
My take on it wrote:
Luckily for you no one has gone sub 2 yet, so sub 3 is within an hour and you're not a hobby jogger. Cheers!
My take on it wrote:
Luckily for you no one has gone sub 2 yet, so sub 3 is within an hour and you're not a hobby jogger. Cheers!
I agree that sub 3 is not a hobby jogger ... if you're a woman.
If you don't earn appearance fees, you're a hobby jogger. If you don't win prize money, you're a hobby jogger. If you don't have a shoe contract, you're a hobby jogger. If you don't have other endorsement deals, you're a hobby jogger. That being said, some hobby joggers train, more, train harder, are faster, and are more competitive; however, we're still all hobby joggers.
the highest percentage of people who currently run boston are in the couple minutes just below the standard. lowering each by 5 minutes would have a huge impact. 10 minutes (just my guess) could halve the pool of qualifiers
OldManRunner?! wrote:
The idea of an A qualifier and B qualifier is an idea...
I don't know what you would make as the times (maybe keep the B time the current for men/women), but you would open the registration to the A qualifiers first for a certain amount of time, say two weeks, before opening it up to the B qualifiers, as well.
If it fills up/sells out with A qualifiers, then Oh well! Maybe it would be a motivator to the B qualifiers to run faster the next time.
Just an idea...
Interesting concept. It would involve some work to figure out the times to set the standards...Maybe a 20 minute difference between the A standard and the B standard.
Age M-B M-A W-B W-A
18-34 3:10 2:50 3:40 3:20
35-39 3:15 2:55 3:45 3:25
40-44 3:20 3:00 3:50 3:30
45-49 3:30 3:10 4:00 3:40
50-54 3:35 3:15 4:05 3:45
55-59 3:45 3:25 4:15 3:55
60-64 4:00 3:40 4:30 4:10
65-69 4:15 3:55 4:45 4:25
70-74 4:30 4:10 5:00 4:40
75-79 4:45 4:25 5:15 4:55
80+ 5:00 4:40 5:30 5:10
M-B = Mens B Qualifier, M-A = Mens A, etc
Sorry, pretty hard to create. I think hopefully you get the concept...The B standard uses current BAA qual times
Does that seem fair? Would A sell out based upon those numbers before it even opened up to B?
Stuckatworksucks wrote:
Interesting concept. It would involve some work to figure out the times to set the standards...Maybe a 20 minute difference between the A standard and the B standard.
There are not many runners who'd qualify for those 20min faster standards. If you look at Boston itself, about 500 runners run faster than 2:50. That's not a lot.
Semantics wrote:
If you don't have a shoe contract, you're a hobby jogger.
Discrimination!
It's pointlessly complex and what would be the BAA's motivation to add complexity to their registration process? BAA has the stats to set qualifying marks exactly where they'd ensure that the field fills yet not in less than a month. No need for a B qualifier, period.
The vast majority wrote:
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot wrote:What would that really accomplish that just the A qualifier alone wouldn't?
The B qualifier would help ensure the field reaches its capacity size (and satisfy the BAA). Get all the A qualifiers in (those that actually want to race Boston that year), and then fill the remaining spots with B qualifiers.
Of course, if the A qualifier is not strict enough, then yeah, there would be no need for a B qualifier...
barefootmarathoner wrote:
Semantics wrote:If you don't have a shoe contract, you're a hobby jogger.
Discrimination!
Oops! Sorry! ha ha
3:00 for men, 3:25 for women
Qualifying for Boston right now is not very impressive. I'm sorry. It's like running a 19 minute 5K. Sure, you have made a commitment to running, but you've found a way to turn consistency into some sort of accomplishment.
It's still over 40 minutes off of OT qualifying, so it's not an "elite" race. If you're going to have standards, then they have to be able to be changed as the landscape changes. You could still have a race of 20,000+, and qualification would truly be something to be proud of.
Three thoughts:
1.) Rolling application dates. Open up the field to sub-2:50 on 10/1, then sub-2:55 on 10/8, then sub-3:00 on 10/15, so on and so forth. Keep on adding five minutes every week until the field fills.
2.) Set aside a certain number of places for each sex/age group, plus a healthy number of "open" spots. So like 1000 each for M/W 35-40, 1500 each for M/W 40-45, 2000 each for the rest (or whatever the number would need to be to fill up about 50% of the spots -- but you would want fewer spots in the younger age groups because a lot of [say] 37 year-olds will qualify in the open division). 25% open men. 25% open women. Rank applicants according to times and the fastest qualify.
3.) Cut age groups to even decades. There's no reason a 35 year-old needs five more minutes than a 34 year-old. Same for 44/45, 54/55, etc.
How many entries do the NYCM guaranteed entry times net?
looks good. remember the standards from 1980, 2;50 men under 40. i don't remember the rest of the age stuff from that period but why not go back to those... oh yeah it's about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$