Is there a better way to admit Boston Marathon entrants?

Who's actually making a fuss about the current system?

Everyone is on notice that it's not merely enough to run the qualifying standard because there may be more qualifiers than spots available, and that the available spots are allocated based on time if there are more qualifiers than spots.

How noble of kofuzi, who runs WMM's with comped entries, to speak for the tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to run Boston.

My brother that has Parkinson's real bad wanted to see the solar eclipse in Aug 2017 and I took him to Washington State. His son is a marathon runner and he wanted me to run that marathon with him (one of the Tunnel marathons) that was not that far away while we were all in the area. I had already BQ'd back in January at -21 but I caved in and ran it with him - picking up 2 minutes. It was much tougher than I thought. Or maybe I was expecting an 'easy-breezy' and it wasn't. It did jack with my recovery time, but I was well away from another forthcoming in mid-January. I ended up with a good case of Rhabdomyolysis (aka Rhabdo). This marathon route is touted to be one of the most beautiful in the country - and it and the weather did not disappoint me. Single lane gravel roads have a crown in between the left and right wheel paths (where you run). Ever run a marathon on old gravel road?

FindMyMarathon.com's Marathon Comparison does give it about an 8 min advantage over Boston and Louisiana but I didn't feel it. Maybe the Rhabdo got to me.

I've made this argument some 20 years ago. But it doesn't matter. They're a business who can do what they want.

I've never seen such gripe over how a business runs itself that isn't on a controversial topic like gender, religion etc. Other marathons have lots of qualifying times but since there is a non-zero (but close to it) lottery chance people lose don't mind the grind.

Boston - whether the hobby jogger olympics, or a standard of achievement for hobbyiest - i think I'd give them preference but there'd be no way to police that. I honestly have more gripe with super-mega downhill marathons than anything else.

For me sure BQ was a big deal at the time, but going sub 3 was a bigger goal. Since I run in the 2:30s and get older, BQ isn't really a big deal for me but I remember the magic years back.

The TLDR: there's no right answer but man oh man do we waste a lot of time arguing over what Boston should do.

I looked at the USATF certified course database to see what marathons in Utah would even be allowed if races more downhill than Boston were banned for qualifying, and the options get very slim. You have Logan/Top of Utah, Antelope Island, tosh Jordan River which I can't verify even exists anymore, Legacy marathon which find my marathon has listed as cancelled, and Heber Valley, which is net uphill and I also can't verify it still exists. The link on gohebervalley.com takes you to some weird anime girl website. So as far as races that are actually verified to exist, Top of Utah and Antelope Island is it. These are both quite small races. 158 finishers at Top of Utah last year, Antelope Island is on a Friday, had 96 finishers last year, and was won in 3:04. Even Salt Lake is more downhill than Boston. So the whole state of Utah has only 1 marathon that would qualify under that system that takes place on a weekend. Top of Utah is a fine race, but idk if it could logistically handle being the only one in the state to BQ at, barring a Friday race.

I've been on the "take a year off and let someone else have a shot" train for years. I've done Boston twice: 2014 to be part of that first year back after the bombings and 2017 to make one last push for a final PR to take a step back on my own terms. It baffled me how year after year certain folks would sign up to do Boston and say "I've run it 17 times in a row!" and then I hear someone else say how they've qualified for the last five years and not been able to get in because of the cutoff times.

Chris McClung had a good segment in his Running Rogue podcast after this year's Boston cutoff time was announced at 5:29 where he had a recommendation of having a field in the application for "Is this your first Boston Marathon?" and, if the answer is yes, those individuals get first dibs into the race, regardless of how much they beat the BQ by. I'd be down for that.

Side rant - shoe technology has basically forced the need for more stringent times as a given BQ of today isn't the same as it was 5, let alone 10, years ago.

Remind me...why don't we like the current system?

Is it the uncertainty? Would a lottery fix that?

They had to institute cutoffs well before super shoes, and they've shutout thousands of runners every year as a result. This has been a problem they've needed to address for a while and shoe tech wasn't really the culprit. In fact, they didn't have a cutoff in 2022 or 2023, and super shoes were in circulation by then.

Their biggest problem is a record number of BQ applicants: Last year they turned down a record 11,000 applicants after having to institute a cutoff for 2024. There's a variety of other factors behind that.

Their website is pretty clear that Qualifying time does not guarantee you entry into the race. It simply allows you to apply. So, they are honoring their promise.

That would just open up the market for legitimate BQ races in the state. No doubt the downhill races are getting a boost currently from their loophole. That demand would just seek other races.

Maybe you'd be down for it but I wouldn't. Standards are meaningless if not uniformly applied. Boston should not, and I'm sure will not, discriminate against dedicated repeat runners by diluting the standard for newbies.

I have an idea. Why don't you give up your spot for him?

Kofuzi is a hack but I agree the system needs to be changed. There should be no people that hit the BQ but do not get to run. Readjust the standards every other year if you need to get to good field size, but no more buffer. Also get rid of the races with net downhills greater than Boston.

The BAA could assign say 2,500 spots to first time qualifiers based on first come first served just based on BQ = you're in, and then have the remaining 15,000 or so (net of charity, corporate sponsors) and everything else based on overall time.

I am 55 and ran a 328 flat in my qualifier, do you think that is going to get me in?

BAA should make it harder to get in. Get rid of the charity hobby joggers who brag about "running" Boston.

I keep it to my self about being a runner. But due to my career and age it always come up how "do you look so young and thin?"My response, "I make time to run".

inevitably the person says, " I've run Boston". I ask what's their BQ? and they say, "what's a BQ I got in donating to charity". Oh wow I say. Then ask what'd ya run? Broke six hours. Or, ranges of 4 -5 hrs.

Then the person finally asks, " have you ran a marathon ? Yes, only three when I was 36-39 years old. BQ'd all three 2:33, 2:50 and 2:36. But I never ran Boston.

At that point you can see in their face they are not worthy of bragging about " running Boston" and understand what "hobby jogger" is.

Keep Boston as something to truly "brag" about ! Otherwise, my 10 handy cap is enough to get me into Augusta ;)

I'm tired of slowazz joggers expecting WMM should cater to them. I'm more impressed with someone training hard and failing but eventually qualifying than these strokers that actually think they accomplished something by having run all 6, yet when it comes down to actually having to train and qualify instead of just sending in your registration, they complain.

I wonder if post-Covid running boom things will settle down as the number of new runners trying to get into Boston stops its year on year growth. Now we are probably returning to a more traditional # of runners entering and exiting the sport who are interested and capable of BQing so the need to continue lowering the times will lessen?

And, obviously not every runner who hits the required time decides to register (ever or every year). For instance, when I started running I did Boston for the first few years bc it does hold a certain cache. I really nailed it on my most recent attempt there so I then decided on other races for the next few years (also by then BQing also just wasn't a challenge so I pivoted to other goals). Maybe a lot of these newer runners who are driving the increased demand for entries will follow suit and this will also improve other's odds of getting a place on the start line?

i'm honestly fine with it only being available to the top amount of runners made available. by any competitive high school level standard, running a qualifying time is not difficult. many runners who will never make a penny off of running can still break the qualifying time with flying colors. if you barely qualified but are on the chopping block, just suck it up and try again next year. slowly and safely move it up to 65 miles per week. do that 16 mile long run. run those long threshold sessions at 10k pace. run some 5k and 10k to indicate your current performance level. qualify for boston with flying colors so they wont deny you.

I have not run a marathon since the 1990s. Ran a number of marathons and never thought about running New York or Boston. Could not understand why people would want to run a marathon that they had to get transportation to the start and arrive hours before the race even started with few if any indoor places to hang out in prior to the start. I liked running a marathon that I could get to a start area an hour before the race and be able to find a place to get in the pre-race zone. Usually picked marathons that I had the chance of winning a few dollars (no chance for me to make $$ in Boston or nyc). I get the fan support but think most people would run better if they did not have to deal with the logistical issues of Boston or nyc.