B.A.A will consider re-configuring the qualification times for Boston

If someone had a lot of time on there hand or could write a really good webscraper program. You could query every entry from 2009 based upon bib number. Get that person's name, gender and age. Query marathonguide.com to figure out their best BQ time and then go from there....

harder qualifying times are the only solution. let's go back to the '80s standards... the race survived those years without going bankrupt, right? even if they thought the way to maximize money was through easier standards, the formula has changed. more people are running, and more people want to BQ. you'll still sell-out the race with a 2:50 standard, it'll just take a few more months.

inspire wrote:

looks good. remember the standards from 1980, 2;50 men under 40. i don't remember the rest of the age stuff from that period but why not go back to those... oh yeah it's about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I am interested in seeing how many 18-34 year old males qualify and run. I would guess it is a much smaller percentage than 45 to 59.

My guess is the tougher standards are going to have a bigger impact on the older groups than on the younger runners who have to run 3:10 because I would guess the 18-34 group isn't that big of a percentage of the race these days. You look around the expo and there is a lot of grey hair.

Red Glare wrote:

Huh?? As if people who can barely qualify as it is are going to run faster just because they know they'll need a faster time? Just run your best, regardless of whether that qualifies you to run in the Hobbyjogger Olympic marathon.

a sidebar wrote:

Whatever the new standards will be (if they do make the standards tougher), they should announce the new stanards as soon as possible so people running a marathon in the coming weeks know what they will need to run to qualify.

If the BAA implements an A standard with guarantee entry for say 20 or 30 minutes faster than the existing qualifying time, people may run their upcoming fall marathon differently with the knowledge of the guaranteed entry.

Someone may run a little more conservative to make sure they run the guaranteed qualifying time or they may want to gamble and go a little faster time than they planned in order to try to meet the gauranteed qualifying time.

even though making standard harder seems like a good thing, you have to remember that the race does need to spread out at least a little bit. Imagine what would happen if you had 20k runners all running within 30-45 minutes of each other. The course would be packed. So you have to look at the capacity of runners running the same time the course can manage, and then spread out the entries accordingly.

Denver Runner wrote:

3.) Cut age groups to even decades. There's no reason a 35 year-old needs five more minutes than a 34 year-old. Same for 44/45, 54/55, etc.

A 3:20 marathon is a lot easier when you are 40 compared to 49. 5 years groups are fine.

Sorry, but you can't 'gamble' your way to 20-30 minutes faster than your 'conservative' capabilities. Ain't happening, dude.

closed door wrote:

Red Glare wrote:

Huh?? As if people who can barely qualify as it is are going to run faster just because they know they'll need a faster time? Just run your best, regardless of whether that qualifies you to run in the Hobbyjogger Olympic marathon.

If the BAA implements an A standard with guarantee entry for say 20 or 30 minutes faster than the existing qualifying time, people may run their upcoming fall marathon differently with the knowledge of the guaranteed entry.

Someone may run a little more conservative to make sure they run the guaranteed qualifying time or they may want to gamble and go a little faster time than they planned in order to try to meet the gauranteed qualifying time.

Suppose you have two 45 year old guys. One had planned to run 3:05 and another planned to run 3:15.

Then suppose Boston says that anyone who runs 20 minutes faster than the qualifying time gets an guaranteed entry.

The guy gunning for a 3:05 who is slowing up at 20 might settle in a pace to stay under 3:10 instead of continue to go for the 3:05 and risk crashing and burning.

The guy who had planned to run a 3:15 might start with the 3:10 pace group if the race offered one.

Semantics wrote:

If you don't earn appearance fees, you're a hobby jogger. If you don't win prize money, you're a hobby jogger. If you don't have a shoe contract, you're a hobby jogger. If you don't have other endorsement deals, you're a hobby jogger. That being said, some hobby joggers train, more, train harder, are faster, and are more competitive; however, we're still all hobby joggers.

Does that mean that I'm not a hobby jogger because I won $75.00 at a rinky dink 5K? :-)

Seriously, I consider myself a hobby runner, not jogger...

Get rid of the Charity Runners, drop the q-times back to sub-3-hours for the men and 3:20:00 for the women.

THEN you'll see a RACE, not an EXPERIENCE.

In the past I knew guys who were clobbering themselves: working class guys with fulltime jobs, who ran 2:53, 2:52...doing 70-80MPW in training, and who couldn't get into Boston because they weren't sub-2:50.

Hey, I'm suggesting giving away TEN minutes. That's a compromise.

I used to volunteer at Boston. One year this large-ish gal came limping up to me complaining, at less than 5K into the race mind you, that she's sprained something on the downhill out of Hopkinton.

"That's OK" I reassured her "You can requalify and run next year". In response I got the Dirtiest look imaginable. I was startled.

"I DIDN'T QUALIFY" she said in a frosty tone, then limped off to the next aid station...looking back at me with an expression that should have reduced me to a pillar of salt.

She was a Charity runner but HADN'T BOTHERED TO TRAIN.

'nuff said.

15,000 of these people is too many.

Charity is fine, but why tie the streets up for six hours?

C'mon now wrote:

Semantics wrote:

If you don't earn appearance fees, you're a hobby jogger. If you don't win prize money, you're a hobby jogger. If you don't have a shoe contract, you're a hobby jogger. If you don't have other endorsement deals, you're a hobby jogger. That being said, some hobby joggers train, more, train harder, are faster, and are more competitive; however, we're still all hobby joggers.

Does that mean that I'm not a hobby jogger because I won $75.00 at a rinky dink 5K? :-)

Seriously, I consider myself a hobby runner, not jogger...

Good call. I should have said hobby runner instead of using the hobby "jogger" term the other guy used.

Oh. So fucking what?

closed door wrote:

Suppose you have two 45 year old guys. One had planned to run 3:05 and another planned to run 3:15.

Then suppose Boston says that anyone who runs 20 minutes faster than the qualifying time gets an guaranteed entry.

The guy gunning for a 3:05 who is slowing up at 20 might settle in a pace to stay under 3:10 instead of continue to go for the 3:05 and risk crashing and burning.

The guy who had planned to run a 3:15 might start with the 3:10 pace group if the race offered one.

tommy salami wrote:

harder qualifying times are the only solution. let's go back to the '80s standards... the race survived those years without going bankrupt, right? even if they thought the way to maximize money was through easier standards, the formula has changed. more people are running, and more people want to BQ. you'll still sell-out the race with a 2:50 standard, it'll just take a few more months.

inspire wrote:

looks good. remember the standards from 1980, 2;50 men under 40. i don't remember the rest of the age stuff from that period but why not go back to those... oh yeah it's about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

They weren't spending at all on an elite field back then. You're going to need to run the same race as the slower runners if you want serious money in the race. What works in Japan won't work in the US.

I really think it's inarguable, if Boston wants to maintain at least some of it's aura, the very thing that makes it special, it needs to make qualifying more difficult. Maybe start with 5-10 mins for men & 10-15 for women, and go from there. If they do not they will hurt this marathon in the long run, of course some say they already have.

From the other post -

The qualifying standards are a bit odd.

A typical 54 year old man is supposed to be faster than a typical open woman. I wonder how the age graded tables find that to be true.

The BAA should say the qualifying times people have run since the window to qualify for 2012 are still valid until say January 1,2011. After January 1, 2012, the qualifying times are going to be readjusted to and then list the new qualifying standards.

They should make that announcement as soon as possible.

TrailsNW wrote:

?????????????????????? wrote:

They do not need to change anything

-You snooze you lose

Which is why entry should be based on race times.

Let's think this through. Who were the people working their way though the online entry system? Qualifiers. Sponsor entries aren't there, charities don':t enter that way. Elites don't do online entry.

There's about zero chance of baa tossing out sponsors, and maybe a one percent chance of cutting charities because they get the baa local support and without it there's no marathon.

So that means dropping qualifications, but certainly not to older age groups that take the time register early, and of course pay.

Be careful what you ask for, for you may get it.

2010 runner breakdown:

18-39 11,397 all

5,455 M

5,942 F (points to qualifying being too soft)

40-49 9,092 all (seems like a lot for a 10 yr age group)

5,284 M

3,808 F

50-59 4,843 all

3,509 M

1,334 F

60-69 1,248 all

70+ 155 all

I qualified for 2010 race with a 2:59. I had a bib in the 2700 range. When you consider that most of the first 1000 bib numbers are not used (except probably 100 or so for elites), there are a lot of slower people in this race.

So I was like 1,800 out of 26,500 or so based on barely running a sub-3.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

3:00 for men, 3:25 for women

Qualifying for Boston right now is not very impressive. I'm sorry. It's like running a 19 minute 5K. Sure, you have made a commitment to running, but you've found a way to turn consistency into some sort of accomplishment.

It's still over 40 minutes off of OT qualifying, so it's not an "elite" race. If you're going to have standards, then they have to be able to be changed as the landscape changes. You could still have a race of 20,000+, and qualification would truly be something to be proud of.

I 100% agree with your qualifying time recommendation. It's incredibly easy, will cut out at least half of the "Boston hopefuls" but will still get Boston a solid turnout maybe even a full field for 2012, but not sell out in 1 day.

However, running a 19 min 5K can be accomplished with pure talent which a BQ almost definitely cannot without some training. It's not an "elite" race, but BQers are still faster than 97-98% of the population.

the only thing that needs changing is womens qualification times. empirical evidence verifies this.

its about as likely as adjustments to title IX