Boston Marathon Qualifying Standards Revisited???

>and possibly sub 3:00 if the BAA tightens the standards by another 5 minutes

I'm just shooting for 2:59:59 regardless of all, it's a nice sounding number. If they don't change the standard I should be able to get in regardless of how many people qualify sub 3:05 and if they do change the qualification to 3:00, I'm still good!

My BQ race is Memorial Day weekend, and all things look very good to go. If my training continues the way it has been, I'll need to update my goal to a more challenging time.

dwash59 wrote:

koja konera wrote:

How so?

Lots of Fall Marathons were built up on the idea of being fast races in cool weather where one could qualify for Boston.

The year I ran Boston, I qualified at Bay State in October, and then registered.

Now, if I qualify at Bay State in 2016, I cannot run Boston until 2018.

Since Boston used to fill up in January, I see no reason not to wait to open registration until December 15 and fill up in 2 minutes then instead of filling up in 2 minutes in September.

You failed to explain how this screwed fall marathons.

I like the idea. I doubt the baa will go for it.

But i would make the half qualifing times harder.

it might get some runners who normally stuck to running 5Ks train for a half and then experience Boston.

people may say it is against tradifion but the qualifying times are chang and have changed a lot over the years. And lets face it. Boston is more of a corporate event now than a bunch of runners getting together to runa marathon

ilovemarathons wrote:

What I would like to see the BAA do is to give back the ten minutes to the men's qualifying standards and therefore make it only a 20 minute difference between the sexes. It seems to allow for medium-okay females but makes it fairly difficult for males, which seems unfair to me (I'm a female).

They won't do something like this unless and until women start comprising more than 50-52% of the field.

A couple of things. If we think the woman's standards are too easy, go back to 1977-79:

Men 19 - 39: 3hrs 00min

Men 40 and over: 3hrs 30min

All Women: 3hrs 05min

Actually, here is ideal in my mind - I guess you can age groups for the old people, but this would be my ideal starting point. This is from 1980.

Men 19 - 39: 2hrs 50min

Men 40 and over: 3hrs 10min

All women: 3hrs 20min

As for qualifying with a half, it can't hurt to ask. I qualified for the masters marathon championship in Minnesota with a 5k time. You never know.

agip wrote:

Joe Wants to Know wrote:

Since the recent US Olympic Trials in the marathon included runners who qualified on the basis of having achieved a half-marathon standard only, will the BAA institute a similar protocol in the near future? The NY marathon offers half-marathon time-qualifier standards for guaranteed entry into their race also. For masters and super masters runners, in particular, I think it would be an excellent alternative to having to race the full 26.2 in order to qualify. Thoughts?

that would help me, but I think it is against the spirit of Boston.

But yeah - I'm in my late 40s and ran an 80 minute half last year - I might have signed up for boston if that would have counted. Marathons mess me up so I don't want to do 2 in a year.

Then don't run 2 a year. This does not mean you can never run Boston. I qualified in Dec. 2011 and ran April 2013, I was able to recover within that time frame ;)

Masters elite can get into most big city races with a half or even a 10 mile time. I am sure Boston is no different. There is a lot of discretion involved, but you likely need something that equates to at least 2:35 to be considered. That's the going rate.

agip wrote:

Joe Wants to Know wrote:

Since the recent US Olympic Trials in the marathon included runners who qualified on the basis of having achieved a half-marathon standard only, will the BAA institute a similar protocol in the near future? The NY marathon offers half-marathon time-qualifier standards for guaranteed entry into their race also. For masters and super masters runners, in particular, I think it would be an excellent alternative to having to race the full 26.2 in order to qualify. Thoughts?

that would help me, but I think it is against the spirit of Boston.

But yeah - I'm in my late 40s and ran an 80 minute half last year - I might have signed up for boston if that would have counted. Marathons mess me up so I don't want to do 2 in a year.

You don't have to run 2 marathons in one year to qualify and race Boston......The qualifying window is pretty large......I qualified in December 2015 and I'll be in the race April 2017. That's 1.5 years apart.

The only chance of getting into Boston with a Half time is if you are going to be in the elite division. I do not know the cutoffs for a half for an elite/masters runner, but I would suspect you have to be be running about the OTQ for a half (1:06/1:14) for the open division.

Even then, that may not be enough. I strongly doubt a 1:20 half will get you in if you are a male.

And there has never been any great explanation why the registration date hasn't moved since the race sells out and not all BQ registered runners can get in.

I wish they would move it back to the week after NY just to show some kind of solidarity with their WMM counterparts. And good luck getting an answer out of the BAA. Getting them to change or do anything differently is harder than running an OTQ time.

Given that the BAA sells out at current prices, they need to raise the price. Who knows how much money they are leaving on the road? I qualified and ran in 2014. Given that it was a once-in-a-lifetime event for me (traveling to Boston is hassle that I will not repeat), I'd have paid quite a bit more for my entry.

I'd like to see NY or Boston just say the price is $500 or something pretty high. Would they sell out at $500? Maybe...

Personally - I'd love it if NYC would cost $1K. That way there would be far less runners, and it would be far more enjoyable for the runners (and the police).

geezzzzz wrote:

Given that the BAA sells out at current prices, they need to raise the price. Who knows how much money they are leaving on the road? I qualified and ran in 2014. Given that it was a once-in-a-lifetime event for me (traveling to Boston is hassle that I will not repeat), I'd have paid quite a bit more for my entry.

I'd like to see NY or Boston just say the price is $500 or something pretty high. Would they sell out at $500? Maybe...

Personally - I'd love it if NYC would cost $1K. That way there would be far less runners, and it would be far more enjoyable for the runners (and the police).

Won't happen. 1/3 of the field is Bostonians. They aren't going to price out the locals.

Additionally, if you raise it to $500, you are going to turn it into a one and done type of event. A check-box so to speak. Demand will fall rapidly. It will fill the first year as the backlog of rejected squeakers get in. But, it would not fill in subsequent years.

Finally, BAA makes more off the expo, advertising in the book, sponsorships, etc... than it does off 30000 entrants and that is without hesitation.

For it.

It would give me an excuse to train for a half marathon. I have done Boston a number of times and only run marathons and trail races these days. It would be fun to train for a half.

The qualifying standards for a half should be much stiffer since people will have more opportunities - one can run more without having to let their body repair from the damage of a marathon. For example: the purdy tables say a 3:05 marathon is about equal to a 1:29 half. The qualifying for a half for that age group should be something like 1:24.

geezzzzz wrote:

Personally - I'd love it if NYC would cost $1K.

Thankfully, you are not us.

Boston is really a race for girls given how easy their BQ's are.

dwash59 wrote:

Since Boston used to fill up in January, I see no reason not to wait to open registration until December 15 and fill up in 2 minutes then instead of filling up in 2 minutes in September.

The reason is that they are trying to limit the field of qualified applicants. Part of that was lowering the standards somewhat. But they still have far too many. So they move the reg date to before all the fall marathons. Fewer people to deal with. Problem solved.

CannuckBro wrote:

Boston is really a race for girls given how easy their BQ's are.

Please elaborate.

Average_Joe wrote:

dwash59 wrote:

Since Boston used to fill up in January, I see no reason not to wait to open registration until December 15 and fill up in 2 minutes then instead of filling up in 2 minutes in September.

The reason is that they are trying to limit the field of qualified applicants. Part of that was lowering the standards somewhat. But they still have far too many. So they move the reg date to before all the fall marathons. Fewer people to deal with. Problem solved.

This would change nothing. The qualifying window is one year, regardless if registration is in September or December. Makes no difference.

simple, really wrote:

Average_Joe wrote:

The reason is that they are trying to limit the field of qualified applicants. Part of that was lowering the standards somewhat. But they still have far too many. So they move the reg date to before all the fall marathons. Fewer people to deal with. Problem solved.

This would change nothing. The qualifying window is one year, regardless if registration is in September or December. Makes no difference.

It makes a big difference within age groups. Example: currently, a 43-year old can run a M45-49 BQ in the fall of 2015 for admission to the 2017 race -- that's a 10-minute cushion.

tycobb wrote:

Why would Boston need to? They sell out and are at max every year. The Trials isn't about "selling entries"

This