No one cares where you placed in some local 5k/10k/half whether you got first overall or some age group award. I won a 5k with a time in the 19s because no one fast showed up. The previous year the winner was in the 16s and the following year it was 17s.
Put in the work and you'll get there. If you must, get every advantage you can get via downhill/flat course and vaporfly/next% shoes.
Is it just me or is "StopBitching" the one bitching here. I thought "usuallytowardsthefront" made a reasonable observation based on his experience.
This is the point I was trying to make. Younger guys who place well in local half's or in the top few percent of a major marathon, ironically still aren't always going to make it. I was in the top 3 % of my marathon last year, this year I'll have to aim for the top 2% simply because that's what's required to get into Boston.
lol I feel this. I was in the top 2% in Dallas and I still feel like your boy isn't getting in with a 2:56:33. tough race though so I'm proud of it regardless either way. 1st Boston would be cool though.
usuallytowardsthefront wrote:
I'll disagree with this post. I'm in the 35-39 AG and sneaked under the 3:05 BQ time in my last marathon. I probably won't make the cutoff for 2020. In a majority of local 5ks/10ks with 500-1000 participants I'm usually in the top 5 OA. Usually the girls who are in the same training club that I'm in that have BQ'd and ran in the same AG usually are barely cracking the top 15 at the same races. Usually the top females at these races are running around 3:20-3:25, not 3:30-3:35.
I guess a better way of saying this is that if you take a guy who is running right at a sub 3 marathon and plop him in a local race with 500-1000 participants, he will probably be contending for top 3 OA based off what I've seen. If you take a girl who is right at the 3:30 mark and put her in the same race, she'll usually contend for an AG award and not OA.
I'm not saying the standards are fair or unfair. Just what I've observed over the past few year.
Yeah right
gevanso wrote:
lol I feel this. I was in the top 2% in Dallas and I still feel like your boy isn't getting in with a 2:56:33. tough race though so I'm proud of it regardless either way. 1st Boston would be cool though.
2:56:33 is in, this is absurd. Anything over 2:30 I guarantee is in Boston.
Top 2% doesn't mean jack if the field is full of 4 and 5 hour marathoners.
Except for mine. My prediction of 2:03 took all of those things into account, including the knowledge that all the models have consistently come in on the low side year after year. I made that adjustment in my methodology. Came up with 2:03.
I also made that same assumption last year, and was about the only person I knew who predicted a cutoff of more than 4 minutes. People thought I was off my meds when I said the cutoff for 2019 would be more than 4 minutes. Full disclosure, I was still on the low end, I predicted 4:12 and it was 4:52 as we all know. But I don't recall anybody else legitimately saying it would start with a 4 last year.
DontDoDrugsFolks wrote:
gevanso wrote:
lol I feel this. I was in the top 2% in Dallas and I still feel like your boy isn't getting in with a 2:56:33. tough race though so I'm proud of it regardless either way. 1st Boston would be cool though.
2:56:33 is in, this is absurd. Anything over 2:30 I guarantee is in Boston.
Top 2% doesn't mean jack if the field is full of 4 and 5 hour marathoners.
I don't think it necessarily means anything, though surely it does a little in the larger city races just as a point of reference? - I was just referring to the other guys post about needing the top 2%. and yea I'm a bit of a pessimist until actually receiving a yay or nay email. appreciate the vote of confidence, though.
Ghost 24 wrote:
Except for mine. My prediction of 2:03 took all of those things into account, including the knowledge that all the models have consistently come in on the low side year after year. I made that adjustment in my methodology. Came up with 2:03.
I also made that same assumption last year, and was about the only person I knew who predicted a cutoff of more than 4 minutes. People thought I was off my meds when I said the cutoff for 2019 would be more than 4 minutes. Full disclosure, I was still on the low end, I predicted 4:12 and it was 4:52 as we all know. But I don't recall anybody else legitimately saying it would start with a 4 last year.
I think there were several people in the findmymarathon contest last year that got it exactly right.
Interestingly, this year it looks like the average guess in the contest is around 2 minutes. Not sure what the average guess was last year.
RunningInSnow wrote:
This is the point I was trying to make. Younger guys who place well in local half's or in the top few percent of a major marathon, ironically still aren't always going to make it. I was in the top 3 % of my marathon last year, this year I'll have to aim for the top 2% simply because that's what's required to get into Boston.
I am not sure why you're being so defensive. Your point is pointless. BQ has nothing to do with % finish in some random race you ran, so this constant reference back to finishes in other races makes no sense. Also, your claim that it's easier for older runners to BQ is lazy, tired, and not backed up.
Makes me worry for next year. Going for a BQ in a few weeks...looks like I will have to target 2:58 or faster.
Ottawa Runner wrote:
BQ Cutoff Watch wrote:
One mistake everyone is making in calculations is assuming everyone not yet on the list will be less than five minutes. The numbers being used for week two from the past is how many less than 5 minutes were accepted. There are unknown numbers greater than five minutes that registered in week 2 that are not on the list.
Also remember that nearly every individual model from recent years misses on the low side. For that reason alone, you can safely assume the cutoff should be higher than any current predictions.
It's not really a mistake, it's more of an unknown that is impossible to estimate unless you have inside info from the BAA. If this is a big factor (the 5+ minute people who wait until week two), then it will change the calculation of the cut-off time. I suspect that the population of week 1 qualifiers who wait until week two is relatively small and wouldn't impact the cut-off time by more than 5-10 seconds. I can't prove it of course and, if I'm wrong, my model will be off base - but that's what predictive models risk doing.
In any case, we should be able to calculate it after the fact - compare the number of people we believe who have already been accepted in week 1 with the final results published later this week by the BAA for the cohorts accepted in the three week 1 groups. If we bother to crunch that, we would at least have a baseline for future years' models - which will be "wrong" in other ways.
Congrats to us on the predictions!
Looks like my 1:36 prediction was off by 3 sec. Not bad, huh?
They give it to Runner's World before they announce it on their own website or Twitter page? Interesting.
31.5K field size.
Larger than in past few years.
Ghost 24 wrote:
Except for mine. My prediction of 2:03 took all of those things into account, including the knowledge that all the models have consistently come in on the low side year after year. I made that adjustment in my methodology. Came up with 2:03.
I also made that same assumption last year, and was about the only person I knew who predicted a cutoff of more than 4 minutes. People thought I was off my meds when I said the cutoff for 2019 would be more than 4 minutes. Full disclosure, I was still on the low end, I predicted 4:12 and it was 4:52 as we all know. But I don't recall anybody else legitimately saying it would start with a 4 last year.
Looks like you were WAY off.
Down goes Ghost 24 wrote:
Ghost 24 wrote:
Except for mine. My prediction of 2:03 took all of those things into account, including the knowledge that all the models have consistently come in on the low side year after year. I made that adjustment in my methodology. Came up with 2:03.
I also made that same assumption last year, and was about the only person I knew who predicted a cutoff of more than 4 minutes. People thought I was off my meds when I said the cutoff for 2019 would be more than 4 minutes. Full disclosure, I was still on the low end, I predicted 4:12 and it was 4:52 as we all know. But I don't recall anybody else legitimately saying it would start with a 4 last year.
Looks like you were WAY off.
Yeah, but see the post above yours.
Demand up (more applicants) even though qualifying times were harder.
Just got my e-mail, IN with a BQ -3:05!
Rocket Scientistz wrote:
Demand up (more applicants) even though qualifying times were harder.
nope: 30,458 last year... 27,288 this year... down by 10%
Just got acceptance email -3:36
Nordas running 3:34 with one shoe is proof that supershoes don’t work
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
American men regularly now run sub 13 5k and sun 27 10k but marathons stuck at 2:07. What gives?
Gjert did it again - produces another Diamond League champ. Nordas over Lobalu and Grijalva 7:33.49