Boston Marathon BQ times under REVIEW for 2016

Running Formula reader wrote:

Old Man Runner wrote:

If the difference in time betwen the Mens WR and the Womens WR for the marathon is only 12 minutes (and some change) then why is there a 30 minute difference for BQ times?

First of all, WR can be an outlier. Women's WR is 3 minutes faster than the 2nd all time. Men's #2 is only 16 sec. behind.

Second, it makes more sense to compare the percentage difference than the absolute time.

At #10, women's time is 12.1% slower than men. It is 12.4% at #20, 13% at #50, 13.4% at #100, 14% at #150 and 14.3% at #200. It seems the difference keeps getting bigger as we move down the list.

The current BQ for 18-34 is 16.2% slower for women. If we take 12.1%, women's BQ for 18-34 will be 3:27:23. At 14.3%, it is 3:31:27.

Thanks for finally saying something that makes sense. I agree that the women's standard is easy, but comparing 3:20 for women to 3:05 for men is absurd

R2D3 wrote:

Women's qualifying standards are ridiculously easy anyway.

I have noticed that running standards for women seem to be easier. Just recently I was looking at the IAAF scoring table to see what qualified as 900 points. For the 5k it's 14:30.81 for men and 17:24.60 for women. That means the respective differences between the WR and 900 points for men and women is 1:53.46 ad 3:13.45.

jjjjjjjjj wrote:

Citizen Runner wrote:

It's the BAA's race, so they get to define the objectives and use their definition of "fair". Perhaps if you can propose a way to select "people who are trying hardest" or some such, they'd consider it. It's not obvious to me how one would do that or whether it would be good for the sport.

That's a classic straw man argument. You set a hard qualifying time and you'll only get people "trying hard."

That's a circular argument, the question is "How do you (fairly) set a 'hard qualifying time'?" You can't meaningfully answer that the by saying you set a hard qualifying time by setting a hard qualifying time.

The BAA answers the question, more or less, by selecting performance at about the 90th percentile of all persons who finish marathons across gender and age.

You may be correct that a higher percentage of men are "trying to run fast times", but I can't fathom how one would begin to quantify that so as to set standards fairly. I also doubt that it would be in the best interest of the sport to do so. Further the women I know who have qualified for Boston are far more committed to training than "just jogging for their health".

****************************************************

I mentioned up thread an article about using WMA age-grade tables to set the standards. It was an Amby Burfoot article in RW (5/2009):

He re-evaluates that position in RW (4/2012):

The latter delves a bit into the root of jjjjjjjj's argument, that is, the distribution of performances is different for males and females.

10 BQs and Never Raced wrote:

I still can't believe people care. Boston is interesting if you're fast (~2:25) because there's so many racers. If you're a marginal BQ then it's just the same as any other big city marathon.

Do you mean 225 for a female or a man?

The point is, us women haven't even been allowed for most of the history of the BAA Boston Marathon to even COMPETE.

Therefore, it's only fair if BAA further levels the field by making it as easy as it is for men to qualify - even if this means making the mens times harder - it's only fair.

Xenostreams wrote:

The point is, us women haven't even been allowed for most of the history of the BAA Boston Marathon to even COMPETE.

Therefore, it's only fair if BAA further levels the field by making it as easy as it is for men to qualify - even if this means making the mens times harder - it's only fair.

not sure why trolls insist on voicing opinions that differ so blatantly from the ones i've expressed in the thread already

10 BQs and Never Raced wrote:

I still can't believe people care. Boston is interesting if you're fast (~2:25) because there's so many racers. If you're a marginal BQ then it's just the same as any other big city marathon.

it's just the same as every other 118-year-old American marathon; where generations have grown up going to watch with their parents or grandparents

it's just the same as every other big city marathon that finishes on Boylston St

it's just the same as every other big city marathon where you can see the Red Sox play the days before and/or after

it's just the same as every other big city marathon where the MLB team changes it's game time because of the marathon

it's just the same as every other big city marathon that has qualifying times for the majority of the entrants

sure, you nailed it... it's just exactly the same as any other big city marathon

winner dinner wrote:

Hey, you put in words exactly my thoughts. No desire to run it. So many other good races to run without the hassles.

yeah but, yeah but it's a chance for all the mediocre runners to post on facebook about how great and awesome they are so they can get their 10 likes.

stick with eharmony wrote:

yeah but, yeah but it's a chance for all the mediocre runners to post on facebook about how great and awesome they are so they can get their 10 likes.

There is intense irony in how much I want to "like" this statement.

10 BQs and Never Raced wrote:

I still can't believe people care. Boston is interesting if you're fast (~2:25) because there's so many racers. If you're a marginal BQ then it's just the same as any other big city marathon.

Disagree. As a perrennial 2:5x guy that has more important priorities in life than running high school or college mileage, it was absolutely worth running the one time I did it. Well run event, Boston is an interesting city, great crowd support, etc. Unless by "big city" you mean NYC or Chicago, I think it is definitely different than other marathons.

I fell into the "BQ Thing" when I got back into running after a long lay off after college. It served as a goal and at the time I was darned glad to make it. (But looking back it I hit it in my second attempt, so maybe it wasn't really all that big of an accomplishment.)

Now as a master's runner it's so easy I don't really think about it. Boston is there to be enjoyed and appreciated for it is and what it means to our sport, but it's certainly nothing to fetishize.

One thing I've noticed - the harder it was for someone to qualify, the more Boston gear they buy to wear everywhere.

The original thread got this wrong. Per the cited Runner's World article, the BAA is reviewing the registration process for Boston 2016. They are NOT reviewing or changeing the qualifying times for the 2016 Boston Marathon. From this article on the Runner's World site today:

http://www.runnersworld.com/boston-marathon/what-fall-marathoners-need-to-know-about-boston-2016

Will the qualifying standards be the same for 2016?

Yes. The Boston Athletic Association said so, here (I couldn't transfer the link but it is to the marathon's facebook page). (However, they are planning to review the registration process for the 2016 race.)

I do agree the standards can use some revision, especially on the women's side, but that is another issue.

EZ10Miler wrote:

I fell into the "BQ Thing" when I got back into running after a long lay off after college. It served as a goal and at the time I was darned glad to make it. (But looking back it I hit it in my second attempt, so maybe it wasn't really all that big of an accomplishment.)

Now as a master's runner it's so easy I don't really think about it. Boston is there to be enjoyed and appreciated for it is and what it means to our sport, but it's certainly nothing to fetishize.

I'm also a "marginal" 2:5x qualifier, same deal - long layoff after college and finally decided to run a marathon last year as I approach age 40. I'm looking forward to Boston next year and then probably won't do it again for a while. If nothing else, I'm glad Boston got me off the couch and back into running in my late 30s.

I was a "never ran", other than soccer practice and a rare 2 mile jog. Boston inspired me to improve. I still run it most years, though I now see new qualifiers every year can look a bit silly. Still, it's a common bond among recreational runners. The only reason I'm running 2015 is because my buddy got in for the first time after several failed attempts.

I'm all for tightening the qualifying standards across the board. Although I'm not sure why the guys on here don't want more 18-45 women in the race. I'm all for a little better scenery.

Barrister wrote:

The original thread got this wrong. Per the cited Runner's World article, the BAA is reviewing the registration process for Boston 2016. They are NOT reviewing or changeing the qualifying times for the 2016 Boston Marathon. From this article on the Runner's World site today:

http://www.runnersworld.com/boston-marathon/what-fall-marathoners-need-to-know-about-boston-2016

Will the qualifying standards be the same for 2016?

Yes. The Boston Athletic Association said so, here (I couldn't transfer the link but it is to the marathon's facebook page). (However, they are planning to review the registration process for the 2016 race.)

I do agree the standards can use some revision, especially on the women's side, but that is another issue.

The registration process seems like the logical spot to ensure 50/50 gender ratios, if that's what Boston wants. All the females in the world could get BQ's but if they don't enter early enough, or at all, then the ratios would favor one gender.

Why are so many guys concerned about the female qualifying standards? Worry about yourself. Probably the same demographic that places women on a 10 point scale and can't fathom why they can't get a date that meets their unrealistic expectations. Sophomoric narcissists.

Eye roller wrote:

Why are so many guys concerned about the female qualifying standards? Worry about yourself. Probably the same demographic that places women on a 10 point scale and can't fathom why they can't get a date that meets their unrealistic expectations. Sophomoric narcissists.

I agree with you, but it may come from some of the women that they run with, or are acquainted with that boast about how great they are (yes, men are just as bad about this) because they qualified for Boston.

A comparison of qualifying times for the London and Boston Marathon:

http://www.virginmoneylondonmarathon.com/en-gb/how-to-enter/good-age-entry/

London:

Age 18-40 men: 3:05

Age 50-59 men: 3:20

Age 18-40 women: 3:45

Boston:

Age 18-34 men: 3:05

Age 55-59 men: 3:40

Age 18-34 women: 3:35