Boston Marathon Debate

They could have a charity half marathon. This was one of the comments that explores another option..."Why not split the race? Have a separate charity race with no qualifying times on the Sunday and the official race of qualified runners (with tightened qualifying times) on the Monday. Sure, the charity race wouldn't have the prestige of the official race but it would be for charity so that shouldn't be the point anyway"

That's the truth!!

1. You could raise standards but it makes no sense to do that as long as there are so many non-qualified people in the race. Leave standards alone for now, but take the fastest runners which sign up during a specific sign up period.

2. Severely limit the number of non-qualified entrants. The demand is obviously high, so this means you could probably double the cost or the amount a non-qualifier needs to raise and cut the number allowed in half...same amount of money raised.

3. More segregation for non-qualifieds: restrict them from early buses and sweep them from the course in 5 hours and let them take the T home. Don't give them any water either.

marathondude wrote:

They should tighten the womens standards by five - ten minutes and give women the credit they deserve - A 3:10 for a man is more competitive than a 3:40 for a woman.

You're splitting hairs with this point. They both suck.

mist wrote:

Mick Lovin wrote:

Here is the big question.

Why were the standards harder in the 80's than now?

__________________________

$$$$$$$$$$MONEY$$$$$$

This. Faster runners just aren't as willing to spend tons of loot traveling to and running the Disneyland of marathons. Before the marathon spread in popularity, good marathoners thrived on and even needed Boston. That was a good 20 or more years ago and it's no longer true at all today. Good runners no longer consider running Boston to be some sort of anointing. This is why, outside of the elite races, Boston just isn't a hot topic here like it is on jogger message boards. Here it's just another high level road race, about on par with Twin Cities, Houston, Cleveland, LA, Carlsbad 5000, New Haven 20K, Providence 5K, Falmouth, etc.

marathondude wrote:

They could have a charity half marathon. This was one of the comments that explores another option..."Why not split the race? Have a separate charity race with no qualifying times on the Sunday and the official race of qualified runners (with tightened qualifying times) on the Monday. Sure, the charity race wouldn't have the prestige of the official race but it would be for charity so that shouldn't be the point anyway"

I don't think that would work. People would inevitably ask, "which did you run, the real Boston Marathon or the charity race?" No one would want to run the fake race the day before.

I ran in 2003 and qualified after running for just 2 years. The dude I ran with had taken 19 years to qualify.

Who could deny him?

Qualifying time was 3:25 for 50yr. male.

They could have the charity half marathon the same day, which could work since many marathons have a 1/2 as well.

In the article, I found this quote from McGillivray to be pretty egocentric:

“I don’t want to eliminate the sense of runner euphoria when they cross the finish line of a qualifying race and they look at the clock and see a time,’’ said McGillivray. “I don’t want them to cross the finish line and say, ‘I hope I’m in now.’ You’d like to structure this where you run a certain time and you can start celebrating right away.’’

This implies he thinks everyone runs other marathons simply to qualify for Boston. Does he really believe that is the first thing that crosses everyone's mind when they finish a marathon somewhere else? Some people may, but I doubt that's the case for most.

Hey, if college basketball teams can gain a spot in the NCAA tournament via automatic qualifier or an at-large bid, why can't a similar philosophy work here?

I feel like those answers wont solve the problem.

1. Charity runners don't take up that many spots

2. You can't run the race without charity runners bc it takes a lot of volunteers to organize boston

3. If you lower the standards by the "15 minutes" everyone is campaigning for the race is still going to fill up quickly bc the qualifying standards are so much of a joke.

BAA needs to make a decision is it going to be the "Marathon Monday Fun Run" or is it going to be an "elite" race with a difficult qualifying time. By that I mean, if you're an avid/serious runner, one you actually have to try hard to attain, or maybe even work years at attaining. I don't consider myself a marathoner and I could qualify for the guys standards in my age group hung over while drinking beer at water stations (and not for nothing, but I have) and it's not something I would "brag about" bc lets be serious the standards are not super competitive.

With that said, yes, some people really have to try to attain the already set standards, and I don't mean to knock them, but BAA needs to make a decision. Is it going to be prestigious to make Boston or can pretty much any one in half decent shape make the standard? Or move to a lottery like NY?

What would I propose to make it truly elite? I don't know anything about marathons, but I would propose two standards an A & B. For the A standard you: 1. Shorten the "qualifying window" then have an "early" entry for the A-standards. Everyone who makes the A-standard gets an entry and gets put on a descending order list, depending on how many people enter in each age group you take a percent from each age & gender group based on the total number of entrants, so it's even & this way the larger age/gender groups don't get screwed. Now, no one who is "elite" can complain -- if you aren't at the top of your % in each age group you arent getting in -- this way it isn't a "who has the fastest computer race" or "who registers the earliest race." People with the faster marathon times are getting in. Point Blank. You have assembled the most competitive field for each age group that is possible. But is this BAA's goal? Idk.

Next, you hold a certain number of slots for the "B standard" (the current standard) which are basically wild cards -- that entry is on a different day...everyone signs up and you get put in a lottery, like, NY. There, no one can complain bc they still get to have their fun run and try to "qualify for boston" and wait in line to get picked in a lottery.

But what direction will BAA go in? Who knows. Two things are for sure, the city of boston cant accomodate more marathoners, and the standards are a 'joke' to competitive runners, but that doesn't discredit the fact that it's still an achievement to some people and more power to them -- I support anyone out there running a marathon!

I second that idea!

I agree with Marathon dude as well. I think the 3:40 for woman is not equal to a 3:10. I am interested to see what 2012 brings.

Charity Runners will make up about 20% of the field this year. I am all for charity runners, but they should have to hit the qualifier just like everyone else![quote]Tufted titmouse wrote:

"If they keep the same standards, they should open registration first for those whose BQ is 15+ minutes better than the standard. When that period ends, those 10+ minutes better than the standard can enter. Then 5+ minutes better and finally open up the free for all."

distance guy wrote:

Hey, if college basketball teams can gain a spot in the NCAA tournament via automatic qualifier or an at-large bid, why can't a similar philosophy work here?

You are aware that the NCAA tournament expanded the number of at-large slots to make more money, right?

[quote]distance guy wrote:

In the article, I found this quote from McGillivray to be pretty egocentric:

“I don’t want to eliminate the sense of runner euphoria when they cross the finish line of a qualifying race and they look at the clock and see a time,’’ said McGillivray. “I don’t want them to cross the finish line and say, ‘I hope I’m in now.’ You’d like to structure this where you run a certain time and you can start celebrating right away.’’

This implies he thinks everyone runs other marathons simply to qualify for Boston. Does he really believe that is the first thing that crosses everyone's mind when they finish a marathon somewhere else? Some people may, but I doubt that's the case for most.

quote]

distance guy,

I know close to 20 runners/joggers whose times are right around their respective Boston qualifying standards. I believe every one of them would have that "BQ time" in mind when crossing the finish line of a random marathon. Even the 4-5 that have no plans on traveling to Boston to actually DO the marathon want to have "BQed". They are very aware of it.

I think once someone is around 10+ minutes faster than their Boston standard, it drops way off their radar of importance. Basically, it's not a challenge anymore so it's not what they're gunning for. 3:00:00 becomes the next target, or 2:50:00 or 2:30:00, or whatever.

oh yawn. wrote:

You are aware that the NCAA tournament expanded the number of at-large slots to make more money, right?

This is why BAA should add an extra wave, not hardening the entry standards. There would probably no more discussion on decent athletes that fail to register. BAA gets pretty easily $2million, to partly spend on facilities for the extra participants. In 1996, Boston was the biggest marathon ever, but is now passed by a lot of other races, not even those considered to be topflight events.

On the other hand, Boston will be able to compete with the London marathon and contract better athletes. Except for Robert K.C. the elder, topstars of marathoning don't show up in Boston.

Also with a yearly $2million to spend, they can invest in US distance running in a way NYRR is doing for years now.

Stanhope wrote:

This is why BAA should add an extra wave, not hardening the entry standards. There would probably no more discussion on decent athletes that fail to register. BAA gets pretty easily $2million, to partly spend on facilities for the extra participants. In 1996, Boston was the biggest marathon ever, but is now passed by a lot of other races, not even those considered to be topflight events.

The extra wave and the charity half marathon both make sense, although the road closure is pretty intense as it stands. Probably they'd need to start much earlier to make it work.

Another thought: more marathons with either qualifying standards or at least preferred status (like NYCM's guaranteed entry) for faster times. It's not just Boston selling out fast. Many others are as well. Suppose there were some incentives in place for people to aim for faster times not only for Boston but elsewhere (and marathon organizers could decide what kind of standards to require--whether the 2:50/3:20 of old or the current Boston or New York standards... etc.).

Granted Boston has a certain cachet, but Boston didn't always have qualifying standards. They instituted the standards, as I understand it (and experts are welcome to correct this) as the numbers grew and with the desire to limit the crowding. Maybe other marathons could eventually have similar "cachet"--and runners would also have more opportunities to run races that reward their strong performances in some way.

The Boston Marathon has had a qualifying standard since 1970.

I guess if I wanted to run a big well run marathon, I'd run New York, Chicago. One of the main reasons everyone wants to run Boston is the Prestiege. If you tell someone you are running Boston, you get that "oh!" look. People know that there is a qualfiying standard, and not any person with two feet (and a large bank account) can run it.

Without the standard it looses it's allore.

Even as a runner who is almost 40 min under their qualifier, Boston is especial, because when you are in that tent, waiting to start, their is a commrodary, sense of accomplishment and respect.

The Question is, who does the BAA want to cater too? I think this is going to be a pivital point of change for the marathon. Regardless of what they do, some people are going to like the changes, others will not.

Mr. Ridiculous Pants wrote:

People like this guy are part of the problem... it's beyond time that he started giving someone else that spot.

NOT if he continues to meet the qualifying standard. If he runs outside the standard than there should be no guaranteed spot. I understand why some people like to do the same event over and over, whether it is a family picnic, vacation, or running a race, tradition means something to some people.

Priority should be given to the faster runners first and then those that have a Boston streak (AGAIN assuming they continue to qualify based on time). Being local doesn't count for anything.

.

Why should the BAA give ANY priority to "streakers."? Who care about them? they should have to get in like everyone elss. Remember at some point the streaker was running in his first Boston. Also what No. are you going to arrive at 10 Straight Bostons? 20? 30? This is the most ridiculous idea I've heard. It's getting tougher to get in, so lets give more people guaranteed entry thus lowering then number of spots.

If this idiot couldn't managed to register in 8 hours, I don't feel sorry for him one bit. Sounds like he knew how to register via computer. He had plenty of warning.

I'm sure this choade will find a way to weasel his way in.

Keep the same standards, but raise the entry fee to something outrageous ($500 ?). Waive or reduce the fee for sub2:30 or whatever.

Jesus Christ, you are illiterate! Stop writing, you are an insult to anyone who has taken their education seriously.