B.A.A will consider re-configuring the qualification times for Boston

overyourhead wrote:

the only thing that needs changing is womens qualification times. empirical evidence verifies this.

I agree, and it drives me nuts that the women's times are so much weaker than the men's. Thing is, now that we've had the whole hullabaloo about Boston closing early, any attempt to correct that will be seen as "trying to keep women out to keep it open longer for men".

IMHO, they should adjust both times down, but adjust the women down by much more. But in light of the present situation, I doubt they'll adjust the women by any more than the men.

Note: I DID NOT register for 2011. Using my 2010 time for 2012, I will be 35! BAA can not ruin my plans to race Boston 2012. This is UNJUST!

parker wrote:

This is such a high school mentality where there is a cool and awkward crowd. I worked so hard to squeak under 3:45 and the rest of you are creating rumors and speculation to lower the standards? Sorry but I don't run as fast as you, but I DESERVE to be in Boston and toeing the line with the current standards.

Why do you DESERVE to be in Boston? Do you DESERVE some of the prize money too?

When I was a kid qualifying for Boston was a big deal - it was something the average Joe could work hard at and try to achieve. It meant a lot to the people I know who qualified. At the time there was a recognition even among non runners that it meant something.

The NYCM has guaranteed entry qualifying times of about 2:55 for open men in the marathon and 1:23 in the half marathon. If you hit those times you're in.

I'd like to see Boston do this. Maybe the BAA uses slightly different times and I'm all in favor of adjusting the times for age and sex but if you hit those times you should be guaranteed entry and not have to worry about the lottery.

The first two Bostons I qualified for, '78 and '79, I had to break three hours; the next three, the open qualifier was 2:50. Age groups beyond were similarly rigorous. What are standards now? Would reverting to 1980 standards not fix the problem?

If you want to run a more competive qualifying time, you can already do that by qualifying for the New York Marathon.

parker wrote:

Then I will NOT do that. I worked so hard and busted my butt off to run under 3:40. I missed it, but my time is good once I turn 35 in 2012. Rules are rules. I don't need to run another qualifying time to validate myself.

This is such a high school mentality where there is a cool and awkward crowd. I worked so hard to squeak under 3:45 and the rest of you are creating rumors and speculation to lower the standards? Sorry but I don't run as fast as you, but I DESERVE to be in Boston and toeing the line with the current standards.

Please end the rumors NOW

Call the participation police... we've got a live one here!!! When did this country become so concerned and captivated with the idea that their participation in an event is in the bill of rights?

You don't deserve to be in Boston "toeing" the line because you didn't run the required time. All of your hard work and busting your butt is admirable, but unfortunately it's irrelevant.

I will give mad respect to anyone that's passionate about accomplishing goals, but what I can't do is support someone that believes they "deserve" something based upon how much they "want" it instead of physically achieving it.

Today's society has mistaken the ideology of equality with hard work and desire, but over the years, we've become so afraid to "hurt" peoples feelings, that we cave in and become a nation of participants instead of a nation of winners. We ease standards, allow more participants, and continue to give people opportunities that they frankly didn't earn... to me, that's just watering it down for the people that did.

It sucks to find out that for some reason or another, you simply aren't good enough to accomplish something. That doesn't mean that it's time to take old yeller behind the tool shed and end it all, it just means you have to adjust your goals to fit within the context of your abilities.

And I'm aware that you're probably a troll, but that mentality of "Deserve" just kills me.

Parker, how many miles per week did you run to get ready for your Boston Qualifier?

You don't deserve to be in Boston "toeing" the line because you didn't run the required time. All of your hard work and busting your butt is admirable, but unfortunately it's irrelevant.

I will give mad respect to anyone that's passionate about accomplishing goals, but what I can't do is support someone that believes they "deserve" something based upon how much they "want" it instead of physically achieving it.

Today's society has mistaken the ideology of equality with hard work and desire, but over the years, we've become so afraid to "hurt" peoples feelings, that we cave in and become a nation of participants instead of a nation of winners. We ease standards, allow more participants, and continue to give people opportunities that they frankly didn't earn... to me, that's just watering it down for the people that did.

It sucks to find out that for some reason or another, you simply aren't good enough to accomplish something. That doesn't mean that it's time to take old yeller behind the tool shed and end it all, it just means you have to adjust your goals to fit within the context of your abilities.

And I'm aware that you're probably a troll, but that mentality of "Deserve" just kills me.

BINGO!

2:59:59 for the men and 3;24:59 for the women..

seriously...most 3:15 marathoners would get close and just train more to reach the new men's standard...

Hall Monitor Lizard wrote:

2:59:59 for the men and 3;24:59 for the women..

seriously...most 3:15 marathoners would get close and just train more to reach the new men's standard...

I hope that if they go to 3h, they do it right as you suggested (2h59m59s) and not their current tolerance which adds another minute. 3h00m59s would be stupid.

2/10

parker wrote:

Note: I DID NOT register for 2011. Using my 2010 time for 2012, I will be 35! BAA can not ruin my plans to race Boston 2012. This is UNJUST!

parker wrote:

Note: I DID NOT register for 2011. Using my 2010 time for 2012, I will be 35! BAA can not ruin my plans to race Boston 2012. This is UNJUST!

9/10!!!

why didn't I think of that wrote:

Qualification only. Period.

Charity runners, "VIP" entrants, and the like....there are a hundred other large, highly public events in which to run.

Leave Boston to those hardened souls who trained enough to be there, the way it was meant to be.

______________________________

DITTO

DITTO

DITTO

Exactly how I feel!

i feel the same way, but unfortunately it'll never happen.

random a hole wrote:

My take on it wrote:

Luckily for you no one has gone sub 2 yet, so sub 3 is within an hour and you're not a hobby jogger. Cheers!

No, you are just a better hobby jogger.

So, you're significantly under three hours? That's great but criticizing the performance of runners who are a bit slower than you, runners who actually fall into the top 2% of marathoners, only serves to make you look insecure.

It's like the club champ deriding scratch golfers for not winning the club championship.

I would also suggest that hobby joggers who do not have a delicate body structure, who might weigh 30 to 60 pounds more than a typical high school cross country ace but still manage to run under three hours are more impressive to me than a runner who is blessed with a Ryan Hall like physique who runs 2:30 to 2:40.

I have been passed many times in the last 10K by runners on their way to sub three who are over six feet and weigh in excess of 180 to 200 pounds.

They'd finish not so far behind you and still have more than enough strength and enerby to kick your whiney ass.

Post surgical old ambler wrote:

I have been passed many times in the last 10K by runners on their way to sub three who are over six feet and weigh in excess of 180 to 200 pounds.

Congrats, you suck at running!

giddy wrote:

They've got years upon years of qualifying times and I'm sure they could pump out some statistics... I'm willing to to bet that 60-80% of the boston qualifying times are within 5 minutes of the standard...

I don't think making it more difficult would "ruin" it... in fact, I think it would be good for it, strictly because it's gotten to a point where it's watered down... if more and more people are able to qualify, then the exclusivity of running Boston drops... It's probably in their best interest to make the qualifying standards faster.

Also, it gives people who haven't hit the standard a little extra time to get another marathon in (if it doesn't sell out in 8 hours)...

Do you people really believe the BAA actually confirms qualafying times? Please! All your registations go directly to some sweatshop in India where they throw info on BQ times in the garbage and just make sure your credit card is valid.

Here's an even better idea. Start half the field in hopkington and half the field in boston. When they hit one another it will be funny as hell.