2015 Boston Marathon Qualifier Acceptances Released - You had to run 1 min 2 seconds faster than qualifier to get in

So are age-grade standards are a flawed comparison b/c the women's WR in the marathon is further out of reach? I can get behind that (especially since Paula Radcliffe's WR seems so unattainable) and it would skew the calculation I was trying to make above.

This clearly would involve some higher-level statistics, but I would be interested in seeing a analysis that offers a bell-curve with standard deviations away from the mean for a large sample of finishing results for runners. BAA could then offer a really complicated qualifying mark that was something like 1.X SD from the mean that varied year to year. And then there would be even more to talk about!

It's NOT a BQ. You can call a piece if sh* t a chocolate bar but it doesn't make it so. Honestly who cares if you think it "should" go to the faster guy. I guess we cut out the geezer& women under that brilliant logic. I mean they are pretty slow.

Im sorry you lack the mental capacity to understand. Must be rough.

It was only one day that caused problems. Under the oldsystem. The first time I ran Boston i registered in January. (Under the old system )

Mycrazyx wrote:

bragging rights as the woman who bust her a$$ to meet the qualifying time?

Huh?

Answer me!!!!

Answering you.

Bragging rights? Mutai was on his way to the airport when you crossed the line.

I agree with George Oscar Bluth: It, in fact, is a Boston Qualifying time, even though it wasn't accepted. I try to think of the process like a job, where the BEST qualified get in. So removing ideas of "deserve" the metrics allow those "hiring" to chose the best candidates.

Also, why are you so angry? Why would you say things like "Since you apparently didn't BQ you wouldn't know." or "Im sorry you lack the mental capacity to understand."

You are a bastion of maturity.

Faster meant relative to the BQ for each gender/age - this was clearly able to understand from the context.

It's a BQ. If a 32 year old ran 3:04:32, it was a BQ. It was, however, not excrement nor a Snickers.

I'm not saying my opinion must be right - just offering my stance that I like the current system better. Neither one is unequivocally the right way.

The gentleman presents some very good points here. I'll only take issue with one, and this argument is more than twenty years old now and has been beaten to death elsewhere.

The 5-6% figures he cites from the Chicago Marathon I'll accept as accurate, but that does not mean certain standards are difficult to meet. It means you have to actually train to meet those standards. If only 6.7% of the male entrants at the Chicago Marathon broke 3:10, I'd suggest the reason is that maybe 2% of the entrants train seriously. Many guys in their twenties can break 3:10 on fifty miles per week, and that's very moderate training.

I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful post.

John ODonell wrote:

The gentleman presents some very good points here. I'll only take issue with one, and this argument is more than twenty years old now and has been beaten to death elsewhere.

The 5-6% figures he cites from the Chicago Marathon I'll accept as accurate, but that does not mean certain standards are difficult to meet. It means you have to actually train to meet those standards. If only 6.7% of the male entrants at the Chicago Marathon broke 3:10, I'd suggest the reason is that maybe 2% of the entrants train seriously. Many guys in their twenties can break 3:10 on fifty miles per week, and that's very moderate training.

I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful post.

I can see the validity of your post. However, I think your 2% number is quite low. But even if you're correct, I would argue that a vast majority of those runners only running 50 mpw would likely not be able to physically withstand much more and would end up injured should they try to get to 80, 90 or more. "Many guys in their twenties" is subjective, and I contend that it's still a relatively small percentage of runners.

I think it's a mix:

1. Paula Radcliffe's WR is in fact further out of reach than the men's WR, so this does skew things a bit

2. The curve for men and women is not the same; that is, the distance between men's times and women's times actually gets larger as times get slower. My personal opinion is that this is because the fastest women have very "boyish" bodies with narrow hips and extremely low body fat, whereas the difference in men's bodies is not as substantial. But I have nothing to back that up. I do agree that actually figuring out such a curve would be extremely interesting. But any lack of speed on the women's side at the sub-elite and competitive levels is blamed on fewer women running seriously, which I don't think is true at all.

Says the guy who ripped off his posting name.

My point was it's not a BQ. Especially relative to the old system. A runner knew when he finished that marathon if he qualified or not. No ifs , ands or butts. Whether he chose to register is a different story.

Now you can run a time and it doesn't mean anthing except that you can try to register. You don't qualify for Boston based on that race. You only qualify based on the participation of 1000s of other runners which makes the true qualifying time a moving target. It's bs to call it a. BQ. It's not. And it's not that hard to understand really.

It more of a BRQ. Boston Registration Qualification. Imagine if the OT ran this same scam. Everyone here would complain.

Ripped off my posting name? What does that even mean? That I'm using a character from a TV show? I strongly doubt that your actual name is "Dr feel bad".

Again, if a 32 year old ran 3:04:32 and didn't get accepted, he still ran a BQ. Same as in 2000. Same as in 1990. It's your decision not to acknowledge this.

Also, this approach (having a provisional mark and determining entrants by performance list) is what is done in basically every event but the marathon in the Olympic Trials, which makes your last paragraph pretty hilarious.

Agreed again with GOB. If said 32 year old ran a 3:04:32 it is, in fact qualifying. Again, think of people applying for a job. It's similar - you can have the minimum qualifications to apply, but not the best qualifications to get accepted.

Also again, why are you so upset?

Long not hair wrote:

I am surprised that all the minimum qualifies did not get in this year.

I thought there was going to be a big drop in I people interested in running it this year. It is a great event so I probably should not be surprised that so many wanted to run this year.

The baa has implemented a good system to register. I give them thumbs up.

in a sense there was a big drop-off... they turned away a thousand more last year...

and we can't forget about the 4000+ (out of 5000+) who registered last year that were invited back after they couldn't get to the finish line in 2013

it will be interesting to see if demand for the charities' slots will be as high this year

"Charity" runner is a misleading term. It's charity for the folks who support their friends, family, co workers on marathon day. But for BAA (and NYRR) it is Pay Day! The charitable organizations pay very (very, very) good money for each charity slot (you got to spend money to make money, baby). It's laughable when BAA and NYRR go on about all the money they raise for charities when they charge charities good money for the right to raise money.

You Are What You Is wrote:

...I also very much like the idea of separate jackets/awards. Runners could wear them with pride, for their ability to run, and so could the charity runners, for their contributions to the charity.

I wonder if charity runners want to be recognized for their contributions to the charity, or they want to make people think they are faster than they actually are.

I don't care that charity runners have the same medal, the same jacket and the same sticker as I do. I know I "earned" them with my running ability, and that's all that matters.

Let's back up a few to the "streaker" comments. We do all know that you still have to requalify for your age each year in order to be accepted. So if a person manages to stay healthy each year and make it back, that deserves no respect ???

It's a cruel, cruel world on this forum.