B.A.A Updates policy for net downhill qualifying races

Aspen Valley looks to be under the cut off.

Wow, that really was easy!

For Phoenix Marathon? It is just a terrible course routing, IMO. The run down 35th ave is a not so great part of town, then jumping on the canal in one of the worst areas imaginable (absolute ghetto first 15 miles), and then back on the canal again after running through Arcadia. I understand why they routed it the way they did, to avoid any real road closure costs, but it's not good. Bit ironic because the Phoenix 10k suffered from horrible course routing the last few years (dodging homeless and human feces in the worst part of downtown Phoenix) and finally last year moved the race to a much better course (Biltmore) location. Every Woman's marathon in November will have a better course routing but the date choice is a bit early.

I'm not a woman, and a BQ last year would have gotten me 5th in the race, and that isn't the kind of race I'm looking for. Even though I don't live there right now, since I'm not sure where I'll be living that area is good for me since I have family there and there are high quality Saturday races that aren't at altitude. I'm open to other high quality Saturday races that are a time of year that isn't likely to be too warm, but I don't have family living where most of them are

Lettuce do away with influencers bibs.

I was actually talking about when I did Denver Rock'n Roll many years ago. I'm sure sea level would have given me that extra half hour I needed to qualify.

You're also missing the point; if they're going to penalize easy courses they should reward hard courses, like pretty much every other marathon in Colorado. Not that I actually care; it's their race, they can do what they want, and I'm too old and injured to qualify now anyway.

No.

its not about that race but that this guy is running for "status"

Do they? What percentage of their entrants run them to qualify for Boston? I don't know, so just looking up a random one now, I see at Revel Rockies, June 1, 2024:

1689 people in the half marathon. . . These runners weren't concerned about qualifying for Boston.

946 people in the marathon, only 277 people were under 3:40, so also mostly people not looking to qualify for Boston anyway. What do we think? Maybe half the people in the qualifying range were interested in running Boston? Overall, a large majority of entrants were not at Revel Rockies to qualify for Boston.

I didn't give a rat's ass about Boston the two times I ran marathons. Over 40 years of running I only ran marathons two times. I did my local marathon twice to take a nice tour of my town. I didn't take them seriously, being two decades past my running prime anyway. Without marathon specific training, I managed about 25 min. under Boston qualifying time (on a tough course, partly dirt, some long climbs). However, unlike my GF who grew up in a Boston suburb and was all about Boston since she was a kid, I had zero interest in racing Boston.

I know a dude that did exactly that. Went to St George and ran almost 10 mins faster than his flat PR. Not only that, but if you look at his Strava PRs from GPS data, he broke every one of his PRs from 5k all the way up to half marathon in the 2nd half of St George.

To this day, he still has his St George time as his "26.2 PR" in his Strava bio. The strange thing is, for some reason, he doesn't count the 13.1 2nd half of his St George race as his half PR.

The main reason I bring this up is because he had one of the lowest bib numbers in all of Boston, wave 1 corral A, then ran like 3:20 something. He usually runs in the high 2:50s in majors. Ran low 2:30 low at St George.

This might be true... BUT... faster runners should be aware that the race also has a 10k and half the same day, on the same course.

When I ran the half a few years ago, I spent the last mile dodging the 10k runners who were running in that same time range for their race (1:08). It was a massive pain in the ass. The marathoners will be contending with that same obstacle, as there will be ~1000 runners who are completing the half in the 2:30 to 5 hour range.

They'll still claim it's their PR. There's no talking sense.

I'm talking about good runners pretending to be great runners.

Actually, claiming PR from steep downhill marathon will be the only thing people who run them do, as the it's one of the two reasons for them, and now the other reason is shut down.

I have a *really* hard time believing anybody who can run low-2:30 at St George is only capable of high-2:50s at any major.

General rule of thumb for 2:2x guys is 3-5 minutes faster than Chicago. >5000ft at the start and an uphill 2nd 10k makes it a little bit harder than people think. No 2:50 guy is running 20 minutes faster.

I recall reading BA said first several top BQ senders are the downhill courses. So this will dramatically change the BQ standard for sure.

As others have said, 25 minutes isn’t even in the ballpark of the time advantage at St. George. There are statisticians who have looked at this stuff — no need for a one off anecdote.

Besides, heaven forbid a hobby jogger enjoy their hobby and feel good about himself. **gasp, the horror!!**

It can be an annoyance but it isn't that huge of an issue for people running the full. I've had to do some weaving the last few miles but it didn't really cost me any time. I think it's a much bigger issue if you're running the half as the wall of people can be quite cumbersome.

Apologies, wasn't trying to insinuate you were female, just stating they are putting together a much better course than what Phoenix did. As far as I know men can run that one as well, but like you, not one I'm actually interested in. Sadly, Arizona doesn't have many good fulls any longer, save for Mesa which is merely ok. Honestly think the OG Rock n Roll that started downtown Phoenix and finished at the track at ASU was the best course. You may want to look at Lost Dutchman if you haven't, at least gives you another option.