Hobbyjoggers go home devastated - 2:55 cutoff for Boston 2026

I count 3 S's.

I agree but in both cases you’re probably not making a living off running so it’s fair to say hobbyRUNNING. But yeah your average “jogger” isn’t ever running sub 3 that’s for sure

You must be new here.

Close, anyone who hasn’t run 2:13 or faster is a hobby jogger according to The Boston Marathon’s Professional Athlete Program.

Well, at least you can put 'Good at spelling' on your resume.

Tell that to a 71 year old; To his/her face.

I think 71-year-olds tend to be as good at intimidating knuckleheads as they are at running 2:10 marathons.

(btw on the first point, lots of pro runners have run 2:10 and over)

Someone who would struggle to break 3 hours with normal shoes would easily run sub 2:55 with supershoes. 2:55 is the new 3:00

Not according to ChatGPT

She still is.

Nobody else pointed out the obvious: the new standards still aren't as tough as they were 40 years ago. Back then, men under 40-years-old needed to run 2:50 and women in the same age group needed to run 3:20.

baa.org

History of Qualifying Times | Boston Athletic Association

Open link

Hobby - According to Merriam-Webster, a hobby is an activity that someone does outside of their regular job, primarily for the purpose of relaxation.

Jog - According to Merriam-Webster, a: to run or ride at a slow trot or b: to go at a slow, leisurely, or monotonous pace.

Jogger - According to English grammar, one who jogs.

So, what do you refer to people that RUN to stay FIT and compare their accomplishments against the same?

Someone who has always concentrated on their physical abilities and not their proper education came up with that 'hobbyjogger' business.

What's special about "40 years ago"? If you go back 50 years, you see that the new standards are actually tougher than they were back then: 3:30 (1971-76), 3:00 (1977-79).

3:20? That's just ridiculously easy. That's 70 seconds a mile slower than 2:50. Women and men should have the same cut off times.

For a time, the women's standard was only 5 minutes slower than the men's (3:00/3:05).

Nothing "special," good sir.

Although the OP was clearly feeding the LetsRun community's healthy appetite for parodies and clichés, I merely felt it was notable to point out that the new BQ times are not the most stringent qualifying standards that Boston has ever had.

Despite the fact that the depth of quality times within the American distance running realm has improved quite a bit since the days of Prefontaine and Shorter, people who want to qualify for Boston still have it easier than their predecessors did more than four decades ago.

Uh, its "knew hear".

The answer is complicated.
The standards are not the toughest they've ever been for 18-39:
Used to be 2:50 male and 3:20 female.
The standards are not the toughest they've ever been for 40-44 women either:
Used to be 3:30 for women 40-49.
Used to be 3:10 for men 40-49.

40-44M has never been lower than 3:10 ... until now.

3:05 for a 40-44 year old male starting in 2026 (effectively Sub 3 with cutoff within a few years) is the most stringent qualifying standard for that age and gender in the history of the Boston Marathon.

Age graded performance for a 44 year old male doing a 3:05 is >70 %ile

Or a 2:53 equivalent performance

Not a terribly difficult standard, but it's incorrect to state that Boston standards were harder uniformly before. They are harder for men in their early 40s than they have ever been.