Since Boston closed so early will they change the qualifying times?

get ugly wrote:

An idea wrote:

Here's one idea for qualifying and registering for Boston:

2:30 and faster register October

2:45 and faster register November

3:00 and faster register December

3:15 and faster register January

Etc.

Obviously qualifying times and registration dates would be different than listed above, probably only one or two weeks in between speed groups would be better, and you'd have to figure in age groups. It just makes sense though that a 2:45 runner would have a greater chance of getting in than a 3:10 runner.

This still doesn't solve the problem that a fast runner can't run a late qualifier and still get in.

Assuming that you are talking about your typical letsrunner, ie., male & under 35years-old, you're talking about the ~3:10 standard. If any "fast runner" is able to run 20 or more minutes faster than their standard, then you should have a qualifier well before the race closes, else it's you're own fault.

It's like buying a cheap PC on Black Friday. You know the store only has a limited amount of them, so you get there early to make sure you can get one. (All other BAA "exceptions" I've heard in this thread aside, of course..."

Common Sense Anyone? wrote:

If any "fast runner" is able to run 20 or more minutes faster than their standard, then you should have a qualifier well before the race closes, else it's you're own fault.

You didn't address the problem. You basically just said, "Assume that there is no problem, thus there is no problem."

There are lots of reasons why a fast runner would not be able to get a qualifier before November or December.

Richard21142 wrote:

Either make the standards tougher or there isn't any point in running a marathon to qualify after November.

Even then, one of my ex-athletes ran his first ever Marathon in late October and ran a 3:04, by the time he found out he had qualified for Boston and entered, it had just closed.

An idea wrote:

Here's one idea for qualifying and registering for Boston:

2:30 and faster register October

2:45 and faster register November

3:00 and faster register December

3:15 and faster register January

Etc.

not a bad idea. Administratively, I think they could probably only do two cut off dates (maybe 3) without it being a real pain in the ass but I like the idea.

I don't know when they start accepting entries say May 1st.

For men under 35

Under 3 hours

May 1st to October 30

Under 3:10

Novemrber 1st

until they fill up.

Most likely the new cut off would be 3 hours but if they had more spots, they could fill them up.

Marathonguide.com estimated non-BQ'd runners (Corp/Charity etc) around 6000. If true that's 24%. A bit high IMO.

This is not the freaking olympics or world championship, it's a "Prize" for runners to race on Hallowed ground as a reward for placing high in their age group. Anybody who meets the standard will ahve placed high (top 10-15% of their age group. The times roughly follow Age Graded standards around 65-70%

This site is dominated by fast runners under 40 yo (I assume). Hopefully that speed will remain for years but there is a drop off after age 27. It is worthwhile to look at the WAVA Age Grade % for the Boston Qualifying standards. What should be adjusted?

Here is the Age Graded % range for each qualifying age group using the 2006 WAVA tables:

Age Group (Age Grade% range)

M18-34 (68.4-65.7) F18-34 (62.7-62.2)

M35-39 (64.1-65.1) F35-39 (61.1-62.2)

M40-44 (64.0-66.2) F40-44 (61.8-64.5)

M45-49 (63.6-65.8 ) F45-49 (62.6-65.8 )

M50-54 (64.9-67.3) F50-54 (65.3-68.8 )

M55-59 (64.9-67.4) F55-59 (67.0-70.9)

M60-64 (63.8-66.4) F60-64 (68.0-72.5)

M65-69 (63.2-65.9) F65-69 (69.9-75.6)

OK.... Young guys in their 20's and 30's say the seeding favors old guys. Actually it's easier for younger guys and wimmen.

I've shamelessly plugged this new race in other threads, so, having no shame, I'll do it again.

There's a new marathon in Rhode Island. Two days before Boston. Qualifiers only (no exceptions). Qualifying standards are 5 minutes faster than Boston across the board. $40 registration fee.

Check it out:

www.ExeterMarathon.com

The website is under construction. The full site will be up in about a week.

perch wrote:

OK.... Young guys in their 20's and 30's say the seeding favors old guys. Actually it's easier for younger guys and wimmen.

I repeat myself but yes it is easier for women because there still are less than 50% women in the race. Until that is so, it will remain easier for them. I think it's ok that way.

What a crock. I have no problem with Boston allowing charity runners, but saying that they are a "necessity" is a lie.

If they made the standards harder I'm sure I would be more interested in the race. Otherwise, to me it just looks like any other multi-thousand-runner cluster. I've been qualified for years (masters but also sub-3) but it's not even a consideration at this point. Too $$$$.

I know a woman that I think ran Boston as her first marathon off a half-marathon qualifier... is that possible? She's not fast either, like a 5k/10k burner that just hasn't moved up in distance, I'm thinking her half was something like 1:40.

Western States 100, now there is entry problem. Any joker with one easy 50 miler has just as good a chance to get in as someone with multi 100 mile sub-24hr results. And you have to submit to the lottery about 9 months before the f'n race. BS.

I disagree, I think to be fair, if you're going to have qualifying times, the age grade is adequate. What is your problem? You don't think women are equal to men? Well I do, and I think they should be held to the same standard. Why don't we take your thoughts one step further and make sure we're 13% African American, 8.7 % Asian, 5% guys/gals who play for the other team....etc...goals like the ones below are rediculous and arbitrary...

Nutella1 wrote:

I repeat myself but yes it is easier for women because there still are less than 50% women in the race. Until that is so, it will remain easier for them. I think it's ok that way.

[quote]Not qualified...yet wrote:

I disagree, I think to be fair, if you're going to have qualifying times, the age grade is adequate. What is your problem? You don't think women are equal to men? Well I do, and I think they should be held to the same standard. Why don't we take your thoughts one step further and make sure we're 13% African American, 8.7 % Asian, 5% guys/gals who play for the other team....etc...goals like the ones below are rediculous and arbitrary...

[quote]Nutella1 wrote:

um, despite what some insane letsrun posters might think, being African American, Asian, or gay, has no physiological effect on your ability to run a marathon in a certain time. being a man or a woman, however, does. paula will never beat geb in a race, and it ain't because of their skin color or nationality. it's cause he's got testes.

um...back...isn't that what the age graded times are for...to make up for the physiological advantage? so to me making a "50% women" target number is arbitrary like it would be to target color/nationality/sexual preference. Anything else I can explain for you:)

tommy h wrote:

um, despite what some insane letsrun posters might think, being African American, Asian, or gay, has no physiological effect on your ability to run a marathon in a certain time. being a man or a woman, however, does. paula will never beat geb in a race, and it ain't because of their skin color or nationality. it's cause he's got testes.

The BAA awarded our running club three invitational entries. I'm giving them out this week and next to a few non-qualified members.

Beats me why anyone would pay $250 to start at the back of the second wave. To each his/her own. I'm done with cluster-fk marathons though. Give me a clean, open road and a few competitors in sight and I'm happy.

Sub 3:00 wrote:

Why doesn't some other marathon step up and start a marathon (or alter a current one) with slightly tougher standards (example sub 3:00 for men, 3:30 women 18-34yr/old)...

I suspect that those who suggest that lowering the standard slightly would increase registrations are likely correct.

I'm able to qualify for Boston without any real difficulty, but am by no stretch of the imagination an Olympic Trials hopeful. Ten years ago I came up with another reasonable goal: get the little-known NYC Marathon standard to bypass the lottery and get my application accepted automatically.

Ten years ago, the NYC auto-entry standards were significantly tougher than Boston's; somewhere around 2:40 or 2:45 for young-ish men (I'm a guy in my late 20's - this is the only one I happen to remember). They'd also allow a qualifying time from a half marathon (no easier - their half marathon qualifier worked out to be the VDOT equivalent of a better performance). Anyway, the NYC standards happened to be substantially but not prohibitively faster than my PRs.

I used to aspire to hit these standards and get an auto entry into NYC. For me it was about the standard, not about running NYC, though if I hit old the standard I would have run it. Now that the standards have been relaxed significantly (they are slower than Boston's and as such not exactly "goals" for me any more, I'm a whole lot less interested in running NYC.

get ugly wrote:

This still doesn't solve the problem that a fast runner can't run a late qualifier and still get in.

If you're trying to make the point that a fast runner can't do a qualify a few weeks before the event and still get in, then sure. But that shouldn't be expected anyway.

This would absolutely be successful in delaying the point at which it fills up, which I think was the whole point. I don't really care for the added complexity though.

get ugly wrote:

This still doesn't solve the problem that a fast runner can't run a late qualifier and still get in.

On the other hand, a late qualifier is good for two Bostons. If next year's is already full (happened this time), don't worry, your qualifier is still good for the following year (whereas an earlier qualifier, like from May, isn't). So another way to look at it is that a Boston Qualifier from November 2009 is a very early qualifier for the 2011 Boston Marathon.

On another note: Problem? I do not understand why not being able to run Boston rises to the level of a "problem." Minor nuisance? Ok, I'll give you that. "Problem?" That is just silly.

BCT wrote:

I used to aspire to hit these standards and get an auto entry into NYC. For me it was about the standard, not about running NYC, though if I hit old the standard I would have run it. Now that the standards have been relaxed significantly (they are slower than Boston's[/b[ and as such not exactly "goals" for me any more, I'm a whole lot less interested in running NYC.

I was actually wrong about part of that. I'm not sure if I mis-remembered or if they had relaxed the standard more in previous years but then tightened it again. The standards are still slower than they were 10 years ago, but are significantly faster than Boston's, at least for young men anyway.

If you think this year was bad, just wait until next year. Everyone who ran a November/December marathon and got shut out for 2010 will sign up for 2011 on the first day registration opens.

And probably everyone who runs a spring qualifier in 2010 will sign up the first day too because they've heard it sells out quicker now. I predict significant backlash on the BAA about a year from now if they don't change something.

That's BS.

I can't stand the fact that you have to register freakin 7-8 mths before the race. Who knows where your training will be then? I've done this so many times before and had an injury or a schedule problem and shot the wad on registration and then couldn't run or shouldn't have (doing this at CIM this weekend ;-) but that was to qualify for Boston ironically..but I digress...).

I don't think its good for the race either.

Back in my day (I had to say that) you could sign up in Feb when you pretty much knew you were ready to go. They should lower the standard push out these freeloaders and allow some room again for the runners! Yeah!