Boston Separates Elite Men's Start from Wave 1 Corral 1 by two minutes

2:19:39 IS 100% SUB ELITE

They are allowing sub elites into the first corral. I'm sorry you got left out. Maybe in the future you can become sub elite instead of sub sub elite.

psyentist wrote:

Cash me out wrote:

#2, so true...

See the new BAA "Unicorn Club", exclusively available to people who have run 5 or more consecutive Boston Marathons. People who have already dropped at least $5,000 to run this race five years or more now have the "opportunity" to drop another $250 to be personally bused to the start line and have access to an indoor staging area at the Athletes Village.

You'd think the BAA would thank their returning customers by providing them something not available to other runners, free of charge. But NOPE! The BAA is happy to thank you for all the money you've spent by giving you the opportunity to spend more money.

I'd love that. I' m a rich assed hobby jogger. I'd happily spend $250 to not worry about standing in line with the plebes for hours to sh!t.

ditto... get to ride on a nicer bus instead of a school bus? inside waiting area? i'm all in... already paid for it

Querfeldein wrote:

Before you start a campaign, please consider that this has suddenly become a problem when it affects men, when it's been exactly the same for women all along. If you're nearly elite, but not quite, you have to run with the mass start, and that's going to put you at a disadvantage compared to those who made the cut. That has always been the same for women in races with split starts.

Actually this is not true at all, unless you are referring to prize money, which with 32 mins to make up on the elite women that will finish top 15 it is absolutely impossible to finish in the money with that kind of disadvantage. The women that don't make the cut and run in corral 1 have PLENTY of people to run with. You could make a solid argument that HAD those women in the mass start that placed top 15 with net time started in the elite women start, they probably would not have finished as high as they did. They had guys to run with, people to break the wind. When you get dropped by the elite women groups you are in complete no mans land until the men that are catching you have made up 32 minutes on you (ie: not very helpful). I am glad they ended up paying the women that had a net time in the top 15 (especially the ones that had requested but been denied entry into the elite women's start), but this is not the way to solve the problem. They could have relaxed their policy on who they let start the elite women's race (honestly does it really matter if it is 200-300 women?)

Instead, they have decided to make it awful for everyone. For the *some* of the professional runners, they allow their best time to be their entry time. For everyone else, it is their best time in the Boston Qualifying window. For example, Thomas Puzzey, who got 16th at Boston no less, running a time under 2:19 no less (2:18:20), is not in the elite field because his best marathon in the Boston Qualifying window is (I'm guessing) probably around 2:20 or so. The first guy to not get the elite start, Peter Bromka, was on OTQ pace for most of CIM this past year, hit the wall and ran 2:19:40. I am not sure when they actually decided to go to a 2 minute difference between the elite start and corral 1, rather than a 40-50 meter gap that it had always been until this year, but I am almost certain both of them were planning on being in the elite start this year as at least since 2012 when I ran my first Boston Marathon, the cutoff has always been sub 224 - sub 225.

Some examples:

2012- I had debuted in 2011 in 2:24:19 and got the elite start. It was in the mid 80s, I ran 2:27:15 and got 19th

2013 - I was told my 2:24:19 was out of the qualifying range and had to use my 2:27:15 as my seed time. They told me it didn't matter I got 19th the year before. I ran 2:22:25 and got 30th. I ran pretty much the whole race with the elite field (I was maybe top 3 of the corral 1 folks).

2017 - I had run 2:25:10ish the year prior which was not good enough to get into the elite field (cutoff was sub 2:25). I ran 2:22:27 for 22nd place and first non-elite. Same thing, I ran basically the whole race with 3-4 guys in the elite field.

2018- In the elite field from the 2:22:27 the year prior. I did not handle the weather conditions great (partly from going out too fast) and ran 2:32 and finished 30th.

It should be interesting to note, I never would have been in the elite field with the new standards and I have had a top 20, 2 top 25, and 4 top 30 finishes at Boston. I honestly don't think I would have run 2:22 either time as I would have been in no-mans land almost the entire race, instead of racing my peers the entire time). I was never given complimentary entry (definitely not saying I deserved it, but it shows that letting sub 225 runners in the elite start is not costing them any $$) In my opinion, this is a little disturbing. More disturbing is the fact that last year's 10th (Dan Vassallo) and 12th (Matt Herzig) place finishers would not have been in the elite start either with the new requirements (Matt wasn't in the elite field last year) and both finished in the money. Luckily they are both in the elite field now since they hit the OTQ time in CIM and Philly respectively, but I feel like the BAA made a huge over-reaction to a problem they could have fixed by allowing a couple hundred women the chance to start in the elite field (if they so choose).

Some stats for this year:

Elite Open Men: 51

Elite Open Women: 59

Elite Men Masters: 15

Elite Women Masters: 15

Maybe they will let guys like Bromka and Puzzey in the elite field if they request to do so now and that would be a step in the right direction, but I think separating the elite men's start from corral 1 is a very significant mistake on BAA's part and hopefully this will just be a one year thing. I am certainly glad I chose not to enter Boston this year.

What is the cutoff time for elite masters men and women?

Hhdjjf wrote:

What is the cutoff time for elite masters men and women?

Not really sure, I think they generally always have just taken the top 15 men and women masters runners so it depends on who enters that year.

Also I do want to add that I have also never had elite fluids either the two times I have been in the elite field, so it wouldn't add to the logistics of that process either. The one thing it WOULD effect, is the Korean church would get pretty crowded with 200-300 women instead of 75 like there currently are. This is maybe where they could implement some sort of policy to get the extra women in the elite start a different way rather than housing them pre-race in the Korean church.

"Give that man a piano to carry"

Oh wait...

A wonderful statement of what makes our sport so great.

Querfeldein wrote:

Before you start a campaign, please consider that this has suddenly become a problem when it affects men, when it's been exactly the same for women all along. If you're nearly elite, but not quite, you have to run with the mass start, and that's going to put you at a disadvantage compared to those who made the cut. That has always been the same for women in races with split starts.

Sorry. What do you want me to do about that? Have a separate marathon for the women? THat's not practical.

I mean I can't help the fact that women are slower than me. This is why Caitlyn Jenners need to be kept out of women's competition. The only solution to your problem would to be have the men and women start together but then you are probably going to complain about the lack of good tv coverage.

Uk Runner wrote:

Last year my friend (female) ran from the mass field and was 4th Vet40. There was prize money for top 5 ($1500 for 4th), but she wasn't eligible as it was only available to the women's elite start. She wasn't even aware of it until I pointed it out recently, so no big deal. But I suggested she ask the BAA if she could start on the elite start this year, so that she'd be in a position to compete for the money, particularly as she'd be expecting a quicker time. But they said no, because there were already 15 or so women masters with quicker qualifiers than her. Seems a bit mean considering that was probably the case last year, but she coped with the conditions better than most.

I am angry reading your story. I am personally not for having prize money for subcategories, but the organizers of the BM have them and so your friend was effectively not paid her prize money which she rightfully earned. The organizers should be sued VERY heavily for what they did to your friend last year. It's outrageous and it deserves some sort of jail time for those responsible because your friend worked her butt off under savage weather conditions and was not given her just reward. Dumb race organizers just make me seethe when I consider all the heartache and training the runners go through to train and compete in a marathon.

What happens if this year someone lines up in the non elite start and finishes just 50 seconds behind the winner. They will have won a faster time than the winner and will therefore have produced a superior athletic performance - will the organizers just ignore this because of their new dumb rules? Can't the President step in and sort this one out - usually the winner of the Boston Marathon gets to see the President so he should have some link with the race.

It IS unfair that a woman from the main field that runs faster than the pros doesn't get the prize money and men don't have the same issue. Yes, no doubt having men around her made her race a little easier, but most people feel the person with the fastest time should be rewarded.

However, the solution isn't to make it unfair for the men, too! Instead, the BAA should give duplicate prize money to any woman not in the elite field who, by time, would have won prize money. Will this cost them some extra money? Yes. A lot of extra money? The vast majority of the time, no. They should budget accordingly, even if it means fractionally reducing prize money across the board.

That Boston thing is so different than what Arhus is doing with World Cross:

"Perhaps the most interesting facet of this year’s World XC champs is that, for 999 Danish Krone ($151) anyone — well any man who has broken 33:00 or women who has broken 37:00 for 10k within the last 12 months — can sign up to run alongside the pros in the championship race. These non-championship runners won’t count in the individual or team scoring — so even if Eliud Kipchoge shows up and wins the thing, he won’t get the gold medal — and will be pulled off the course if they’re about to be lapped. But otherwise, they can run the same course, at the same time, as the best runners on the planet. Larsen says he hasn’t looked into the entries in detail yet, but says that “a top 10 runner from the Euros” has entered as part of the non-championship field."

Great article, LR!

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/03/mud-beer-and-vikings-a-behind-the-scenes-look-at-how-the-incredible-2019-world-xc-course-was-designed/

Letsrun in a nutshell:

"....Guys running 2:13-2:19 need to step it up and race faster to be able to compete internationally. ....Americans suck at the marathon aside from Rupp and these scrubs should barely be considered elite.... 2:19 is sub-elite and a joke..."

Regarding IAAf qualifying standards and the killing of USA olympic trials drama:

"Everyone should be able to make a bid for top 3 and go to the Olympics, regardless of qualifying time. ....IAAF is killing distance running.... The trials are the best!..."

Regarding Boston marathon start corrals:

"The sub-elites (see above) deserve a chance to compete with the elites and make a bid to win some prize money.... This is unfair and killing the drama of distance running...."

Raising Massachusetts wrote:

2:19:39 IS 100% SUB ELITE

They are allowing sub elites into the first corral. I'm sorry you got left out. Maybe in the future you can become sub elite instead of sub sub elite.

Honest question (not looking for any conflict):

You think 2:19:39 is sub-elite, no problem, I agree.

But, let's say that 2:19:39 (pretty fast!) gets in the same corral as the elites at Boston and is then pulled to a faster time and runs, say 2:17. They then qualify for the olympics trials. That's a cool story of progress, right?

I guess I'm feeling that I don't mind the 2:11:xx tough IAAF standard to compete in the Olympics, but why not make it MORE accessible to runners to get in the best possible situations to run faster races and maybe have the experience of the olympic trials? It's the only event where having a ton of runners in the race isn't really an issue (as opposed to track races)

I don't care either way, just curious of what you think. Thanks

Where is your evidence that Boston is not letting 2:20 guys start with the elite field. Until someone shows me evidence that someone with a realistic shot of qualifying for the trials is being forced to start 2 minutes back. Usually, Boston lets guys into the elite field who are sub-elites. I know 4 or 5 years back before I hit the mark and had 65min half under my belt they offered me comped entry into the elite field but no travel assistance. I would be stunned if they still didn't do this with anyone who showed a realistic chance of getting into the trials. I'd be surprised if they didn't let a 2:22ish guy start with the elites even if he weren't comp'd. But I may be wrong.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

Where is your evidence that Boston is not letting 2:20 guys start with the elite field. Until someone shows me evidence that someone with a realistic shot of qualifying for the trials is being forced to start 2 minutes back. Usually, Boston lets guys into the elite field who are sub-elites. I know 4 or 5 years back before I hit the mark and had 65min half under my belt they offered me comped entry into the elite field but no travel assistance. I would be stunned if they still didn't do this with anyone who showed a realistic chance of getting into the trials. I'd be surprised if they didn't let a 2:22ish guy start with the elites even if he weren't comp'd. But I may be wrong.

You must not have read my earlier post. Peter Bromka ran 2:19:40 at CIM in 2018 and is bib 126 (first bib 101 or higher, not including the female masters runners in the elite field which start at f101). Thomas Puzey ran 2:18:20 at Boston in 2017 but only 2:20:20ish in the Boston 2019 qualifying window and is bib 127. They do say they will consider runners not sub 219 and sub 245 and I know there are women in the field in a similar situation as you (no marathon but fast half marathon) that are in the women's elite field. They would have to change runners such as Bromka and Puzeys number to an elite number for them to get into the elite start and maybe they will if they ask, but as of now, that is not the case. Like I also said in my post, there was no reason for Bromka and Puzey to think they wouldnt be in the elite field because sub 224/225 has always made the elite field with a non-complimenatry, non-supported entry.

No more Cinderella story where a slob groundskeeper wins prize money from the general classification.

Oh wait, the women got prize money last year anyway.

Pathetic Puzey doesn't get in. Korir ran 2:18:14 in 2017 for prize money. These 2:19:01 to 2:22:00 guys are being deprived of a shot at prize money.

No long shots makes for a more boring race.

Shane33 wrote:

I already got a response. Looks like we were worried for nothing:

"There are 9 separate gun starts: Mens Wheelchair, Womens Wheelchair, Handcycle/Duo, Elite Women, Elite Men, Wave 1, Wave 2, Wave 3, Wave 4. Again, each start is a “gun” time start."

Are you trolling or are you dense? They had to be laughing out loud as they explain that OF COURSE you’ll get a separate gun start

What if it was France, and a large group out of Wave 1 just started running the race when the gun went off for the Elite runners?