Boston is closed

F'ing ridiculous. Might as well be Marine Corps now. Glad I've already run it without plans to run it again.

hopefull wrote:

OK, some of you are a bit put off by the close-out. Here is another take. I am a new runner by most standards. My first in 06. I have worked hard, had nearly 2 years of injury and if that isn't enough for you, I have a very debilitating disease that detroys my joints! So, this runner has EARNED her way in! Q-time? 4:00, I did 3:59:20! So there! Nothing worse than smug runners...you aren't the only ones out there. For some of us, walking is a miracle! How about being a source in inspiration?

You really bring a tear to my eye babe. I'm sure there is a Rock N Roll marathon with your name on it. Allyo uneed now is five of your BFFs to walk side by side with, a fuel belt, and an ipod.

and i'm taking my ball with me wrote:

I guess the toughest among us will all just run Fukuoka instead.

Yeah. Right. One American ran Fukuoka last year. Have fun! Enjoy those inexpensive plane tickets and Japanese hotel prices!

Twaldo wrote:

Why not like it was in the 70's? 3:00 or less for men under 40, 3:30 or less for all women and masters men. That's it. Make it simple, make it exclusive again.

Sure would. Exclusive enough that virtually no one over 60 could run. Better idea is to set new standards set by age graded tables. Use the regional class standard or better. (70+) This for example would mean a 60 year old male would have to run just under 3:39 (From 4:00) tough, but not impossible. A 45 year old male then would need slightly under 3:11. 30 year old female about 3:15. This would limit the field somewhat, but make it competitive in all age groups, but probably still fill up the field by April.

This excuse is as lame as those who say they don't have the time to train before work. If you want it to happen you make the time. Nothing was stopping the laggards from registering at 7am or during their lunch break. A lesson learned and not to be repeated I'd imagine. Lastly, a quick check of last year's finishing times show that over 1,300 runners went under 3hrs. Another 5,500 got in under 3.5hrs. That's a decent field for the front-half.

moto3111969 wrote:

I start work at 6am, and don't have a cushy white collar job where I can play on the computer all day. I have to wait til I get home and try to sign up the old fashioned way. I was all prepared to sign up, and was surprised it filled up so quickly. It's getting to be a "lottery" system where you just have to cross your fingers and wait to see if you get in. It's sad, because most of these people running Boston are just running it, not racing it. Average times have slowed down drastically in the last decade for avg. finish, and it's getting to the point where there are onle a few hundred going under 3 hours, the rest "jogging" in. Oh well, time to look into Kenosha or Rockford, I guess.

agree with many of the comments above

time for the BAA to change the standards - especially for the women - 3:40! 10 minute difference at the most

Hopefull, you did earn your way in under the current standards, and for that I congratulate you. You have obviously overcome a tremendous amount to run sub-4:00. I'm not being smug or BS'ing you when I say that this DOES inspire me, given your joint disease.

However, I think you are conflating two arguments.

I think it's great that you can break 4:00. I don't think anyone is minimizing an achievement like this. (I know I'm not.) That's not what this argument is about.

There are a lot of marathons out there that provide an opportunity to set a personal challenge (finish, run sub-4:00, run sub-X:XX).

Boston is supposed to be different. The reason you want to qualify is because the BAA has cultivated a sense of selectivity over the years. To run Boston means that you are (relatively) fast for your sub-group (age, gender).

If Boston entry becomes a test of how quickly you can sign up, then it loses this selectivity. Regardless of the actual cutoff time (3:10/3:40, 3:00/3:30, 2:50/3:20... going up by age), the qualifying factor must be *a race result*, not your availability to register 8 hours after it opens.

If there is another qualifying factor - as there was this year - then the selectivity that you worked so hard to be a part of goes away. Boston becomes like just about every other mass-participation marathon.

Wouldn't it be better to force a few people to work a little harder for a faster time, and to (unfortunately) exclude some people who are physically incapable of meeting that higher standard, then to eliminate the one thing that distinguishes the Boston Marathon?

(I say this with no hard feelings, as I registered today, and so did my training partners.)

Pretty good response here.

"Nothing was stopping the laggards from registering at 7am..."

Actually there was something stopping the 'laggard' (whatever that is) - registration didn't open until 9:00! I actually feel bad for these types of folks. And why would someone "make it happen" if registration didn't close for 2 months last year. How many people actually thought they needed to take off work to register!?! I thought it would close quick but I was guessing a week or two.

Two things.

1) Mass hysteria.

2) Boom, baby, boom!

[quote]blaster wrote:

This excuse is as lame as those who say they don't have the time to train before work. If you want it to happen you make the time. Nothing was stopping the laggards from registering at 7am or during their lunch break. A lesson learned and not to be repeated I'd imagine. Lastly, a quick check of last year's finishing times show that over 1,300 runners went under 3hrs. Another 5,500 got in under 3.5hrs. That's a decent field for the front-half.

[quote]

I was at work at 7am. I got home at 5:23 ( I remember because I immediately tried to sign up for the race). I had a 22 minute lunch break, like I do every day. When could I have signed up for that race, considering it was taking people hours to do so?

I understand that that is just how it is. I'm not happy about it, but I also didn't think it would happen that way.

I'll set new goals for this year, I guess.

too slow wrote:

gansettnative wrote:

Not the big city race but the ONLY way in is to qualify. A runner's race.

http://www.gansettmarathon.com

looks like a good race

winner in 2:21 but he was the only one under 2:40, 6 total people under 2:50 and 11 under 3:00.

Most foreign entrants would have been sleeping during the registration period. This must have virtually eliminated them from getting in. It hurts the quality and prestige of the race if virtually no one overseas enters.

In 2003 the standards were loosened

2003 BOSTON MARATHON QUALIFYING STANDARDS

Age Group Men ... Women ... Adjustment

18-34 ... 3 hrs 10 min ... 3 hrs 40 min ... --

35-39 ... 3 hrs 15 min ... 3 hrs 45 min ... --

40-44 ... 3 hrs 20 min ... 3 hrs 50 min ... --

45-49 ... 3 hrs 30 min ... 4 hrs 00 min ... + 5 min

50-54 ... 3 hrs 35 min ... 4 hrs 05 min ... + 5 min

55-59 ... 3 hrs 45 min ... 4 hrs 15 min ... + 10 min

60-64 ... 4 hrs 00 min ... 4 hrs 30 min ... + 20 min

65-69 ... 4 hrs 15 min ... 4 hrs 45 min ... + 30 min

70-74 ... 4 hrs 30 min ... 5 hrs 00 min ... + 40 min

75-79 ... 4 hrs 45 min ... 5 hrs 15 min ... + 55 min

80+ ... 5 hrs 00 min ... 5 hrs 30 min ... + 70 min

Take your sob story elseware.

Some of us wanted to be in pro sports or the Olympics but weren't.

You know why? We weren't good enough and looked another place to excel.

Either you can do it or ypu can't. You don't dumb down everything to let everyone in.

kinda feel sorry wrote:

"Nothing was stopping the laggards from registering at 7am..."

Actually there was something stopping the 'laggard' (whatever that is) - registration didn't open until 9:00! I actually feel bad for these types of folks. And why would someone "make it happen" if registration didn't close for 2 months last year. How many people actually thought they needed to take off work to register!?! I thought it would close quick but I was guessing a week or two.

And there was something else stopping them too - the redirect on the website wasn't working for a lot of people. I know of one "laggard" who tried and tried to register right when it opened and then again an hour later and could not get in. She finally decided to give up and try again later when the traffic eased. She's locked out now.

I explained the situation to my principal and she came in to watch my class from 9:00 - 9:10. Obviously she is supportive and I have earned it by always stepping in to help in any way I can around the school - from coaching XC, VB, BB, and track to assemblies, switching duties, extra duties... etc. I tried 3 times to register and it didn't work (would not submit page 1). My quess was that it would sell out today, so I switched yard duty (pulled another favor) with a colleague and tried again at 2:00 and it took less than 5 mins. to get in.

I agree that it is becoming less of a meaningful race for me as I can break the standard by 29 minutes for my age group. My family likes the weekend so I will continue to go, but I won't be disappointed when the time comes that I miss out due to a stampede of 3:20 marathoners that just happen to be at their computers at the right time before me.

Personally, I agree with tightening the standards overall and/or keep the standards but with guaranteed entry for those who meet tougher standards (e.g. 2:45 for <40, 3:00 for 40-50... etc).

It IS losing the prestige it once held.

I registered on February 13th when I ran in 2007. What changed between then and now!?

SUITE 100 wrote:

I registered today but for some reason it really turns me off that if filled up so quickly.

I bet there will be no discussion to tightening the stantards to qualify in future years.

The BAA puts on a great race but for some reason this registration process makes me not want to do it in future years even though I have run it a number of times and have enjoyed it every time I have run it.

I was thinking the same thing. I'm not sure why it bothers me, it's not like I squeaked in (my qualifying time was a 2:52) but I still feel like something is not right.

Maybe because I'm 6 months out and haven't even run NYC yet (which I'm finishing up training for now) so its hard to think about another one?