Boston cutoffs are getting ridiculous

seattle prattle wrote:

What we need is a running event on par with the Boston Marathon for other distances, and that would take some pressure off of all the demand to get into that one oversubscribed event.

Let's say there was a half marathon of that appeal and draw - I would sign up for that much more wholeheartedly than the Boston Marathon. The big reason for people to do BM for me and many others is because it's the big one.

And if there were some renowned shorter races out there, less people would be drawn to the BM and then the cut-offs would be relaxes (less demand).

I'd like that. Meb's brother tried to start one a few years ago, a half marathon in San Diego called something like the USA half marathon. Cutoffs were from 1:10 to 2:30 (I think 1:35 was the qualifying time for M50-55), and the organizers said they hoped to tighten standards a bit in future years if they got a lot of participation. The 2015 race got decent reviews online, but it only drew about 3,000, compared to a 5,000 cap, and the 2016 race was cancelled a month before it was to take place.

They should care what I think because I offer reasonable claims, whereas they should not care about what you think because you do not.

Dril wrote:

Bruh,

I'm guessing people who can "just roll off the couch and run 2:57" have spent anywhere between 5 to 20 years training for other distances. In fact they've put in far more work than 99% of the population who need to train 3-4 months immediately prior to a BQ. So quit your moaning and run more.

I mean yeah you proved my point. Those people are part of a miniscule part of the population that has a very narrow POV on the whole thing. We get it you were a great D1 runner, have a 10/10 wife, and make $500K. 70 mpw is the "minimum" anyone should do, and you must be a hobby-jogger unless you run 2:45 on a bad day.

The system right now I actually like that it allows as many people under the standards as they can (exempting Charity runners, which we all begrudgingly accept).

However, in its complete inflexibility around first-time Boston runners and type of qualifiers it seems like it could improve.

Eliminate phony downhill courses, prioritize first-time runners, and make a hard auto-qualifying standard for the elitists on here that want to take it down to 2:50. Should keep everyone happy.

I don't think I could make a BQ if I kept training for another year.

You don't even need to run 65+ mpw to get under 2:50. When I qualified for the '82 race by getting under 2:50 at the '81 Marine Corps I was running about 45 a week. If I did it, I expect a lot of other guys could do it too.

Seattle Grey Hair wrote:

You don't even need to run 65+ mpw to get under 2:50. When I qualified for the '82 race by getting under 2:50 at the '81 Marine Corps I was running about 45 a week. If I did it, I expect a lot of other guys could do it too.

We all appreciate the humblebrag. Well-executed.

I think a lot of the downhill courses that are "crazy" are at altitude (otherwise they couldn't be crazy, because you have to be so high to begin with to have crazy downhill). I believe they started as a way to negate the negative effects of altitude. No one can run as fast of a marathon at altitude as they can at sea level. But, they've clearly gone too far. A 1,000 foot drop at 5,000 feet of elevation is still in line with or slightly slower than a flat sea level course. But now they have course with 4-5-6,000 feet of downhill, and that is driven entirely by people wanting easy BQs and easy PBs. So, I think either limit downhill races at altitude to a level of drop that makes it aerobically equal to a flat sea level (around 1,000 feet) or eliminate downhill races and give altitude, flat course an altitude adjustment like they do in the NCAA. Otherwise, runners at altitude are at a major disadvantage and can only qualify by spending money to travel.

SlowAFRunnrMom wrote:

I don't think I could make a BQ if I kept training for another year.

Some people just aren't good enough no matter how hard they try, that is just life. There are several other races you can do.

Sounds totally fair.

I think the current procedure is fine. the standards are basically guidelines anyway— they end up being faster as many people hit them.

Three to four months at 45-50 mpw? Gosh, that's almost serious training. How dare they expect someone to do that.

Sarcasm aside, the standards are supposed to keep out the average jogger and admit people who are more serious about their running.

Utter stupidity. You maybe spend 20 minutes at altitude that affects you, and you are still going downhill

These cutoffs are "fair" in the sense that qualifying is based completely on merit as a runner. They're "unfair" in the sense that all sports are unfair: Not everybody has the talent to qualify. Some people on this thread seem to be implying that there's something wrong with the new cutoffs because they have this idea that Boston is supposed to be hard but attainable. That's just nonsense.

First, Boston implemented qualifying times because they couldn't handle the numbers. It wasn't part of a plan to be an elite race; it just reflected the mentality at the time that the fairest way to allocate scarce spots was by giving them to the fastest runners. That's still essentially how it works; the cutoffs change organically as a reflection of how many fast people want to race. The standards are not based on anyone's abstract idea of what good challenge would be.

Second, as people on this thread keep demonstrating, there is no qualifying standard that could be generically "hard but attainable" for the majority of people. Some people beat their time by a minute per mile without too much trouble. Others will never get there no matter what they do. Some consider it unreasonable to have to train 12 hours/week while working full time. Some train even more than that just because they enjoy it.

It's frustrating to watch a big accomplishment slip beyond your grasp, but that's sports. I actually think if there's a single most important lesson you can learn from being an athlete, it's that you can do everything right and still lose. At the end of the day, you have to be satisfied with how you fought.

Yeah I always thought of the Boston Marathon as pretty exclusive, But I know some straight half A*& Hobby Joggers who make it in. The standards seem way way to loose. There are a million ' Thons for them. Make Boston legit exclusive to serious runners.

I think the actual qualifying times aren’t a problem, but the uncertainty of if you actually qualified.

There is no real solution, but it would be nice to cross the finish line at 2:57:59 and know you qualified so you can sign up.

Not be left wondering for 1 to 12 months

You clearly have never raced at altitude; typical flatlander attitude (like less oxygen actually makes a difference). But, fine get rid of downhill and do the altitude adjustment. No complaints whatsoever here.

Bingo !!

Free_the_thigh wrote:

I think the actual qualifying times aren’t a problem, but the uncertainty of if you actually qualified.

There is no real solution, but it would be nice to cross the finish line at 2:57:59 and know you qualified so you can sign up.

Not be left wondering for 1 to 12 months

Agreed. The waiting is the hardest part. They could lower the qualifying time to 2:53:00 like NYC.

What bugs me is that they added a 4th wave and allowed 36,000 runners to run the 100th-anniversary race in 1996 and again in 2014 after the bombings. But then they cut it back to 30,000 and said that was their agreement with local towns. Why the BAA agreed to that, I dunno. Maybe to get free press coverage and create a buzz by restricting supply to increase demand. At least they got a clue, and increased it to 31,500 this year.

But why not always have a 4th wave and 36,000 runners? They announced in their news release: "This year the B.A.A. was unable to accept 3,161 qualifiers due to field size limitations. " What! They could have increased the field to 34,661 and let everyone in, and this would have been still less than the 1996 and 2014 field sizes of 36,000. It's almost like they don't want everyone to get in.

I agree that USATF should put an end to the insane downhill marathon courses being valid qualifiers. I made it under my age group time, but didn't make the actual cutoff afterwards. Sure I ran on a flat course, but it's a little frustrating to have my time be deemed equivalent to someone who ran a downhill marathon and got a couple minutes off just by doing a REVEL race or whatever.

Sure, I could go do a downhill race, it's just a little unfair for the times to be treated equally. More and more of those races are going to pop up.