I think BAA saw my post on Letsrun.com on the day Boston registration closed last year and they chose to implement my idea. My specific recommendations were slightly different, but the concept was mine and I'm proud that they used it. Registration will go great next year, thanks to me. All modesty aside.....
They only solved one problem -- qualified people getting shut out completely (first time it was an issue was for 2011 race).
They did not solve the other and bigger problem -- Fall qualifiers (Chicago, NYC, MCM, Philadelphia, Twin Cities, any number of others) being shut out because registration closed too early (first happened for 2008 or 2009 race). It used to be that registration did not close until soon before the race.
Does anyone know why they didn't just go with a Dec 31st Qualifying Deadline? The mid-September deadline is effectively closes legitimate qualifying chances by late Spring. It still would have left plenty of time to see how the race filled up.
You may use a Fall Qualifier. You just have to wait a year. The Boston Marathon will still be there the next year.
agegrade wrote:
This still doesn't address the age grade discrepancy between males and females under age 40. With the new standards, the slowest qualifying time for a 34 year old female is age graded at 63.7% and for a 34 year old male at 67.5%. The same is true for the 35-39 age category. After 40 it evens out. For a female under 35 to match the qualifying standard that is set for men they should be running a 3:22. Considering the new rolling admission this gives a HUGE advantage to this age group, which is also the fastest growing demographic in the running community.
Just to play devil's advocate . . . My understanding is that Boston is aiming to get qualified entries that are proportional to the general population of marathoners. That is, the qualifying standard is set at something like the 90th percentile of all performances for each gender/age group. That percentile does not necessarily correspond to a particular age graded standard because the age graded standards are set to be proportional to (approximately) age group records, that is the 100th percentile. If the distribution of performances isn't the same across gender/age groups then the 90th percentile won't correspond to the same age grade across gender/age groups.
One piece of evidence that indicates this might be the case is that the Olympic Trials standard for men is a considerably higher age-grade than it is for women, yet both are choosen to get 100 qualifiers or some such. This begs the question of why women's marathoning has less depth at the more competitive end, but it provides some rational justification for why the BQ standards are what they are.
Belgian Waffle wrote:
They did not solve the other and bigger problem -- Fall qualifiers (Chicago, NYC, MCM, Philadelphia, Twin Cities, any number of others) being shut out because registration closed too early (first happened for 2008 or 2009 race). It used to be that registration did not close until soon before the race.
Is it up to Boston to prop up these other races? I'm just glad they did something to make sure people that qualify can get in.
I coach a lot of different runners.
In my experience the vast majority of women that come to me for Marathon training (yes, there are some major exceptions) need to have a fire lit under them.
What I mean by that is that they are there for the experience, the scenery, the crowd, etc. They just want to qualify to get there. They (yes, again there are a few exceptions) usually don't care about what place they end up in and often forget that it's a race.
If you are a woman of average ability but train like one of the fellas than you can go a LONG way in Marathon running.
This is why the depth at the sub - elite level is lacking for women. It's in their nature to be less competitive on average compared to the men.
Again, there are exceptions to this. I have trained a few woman runners that break this mold and put the others to shame. Some would drown themselves if they knew that when they were revived they would be faster.
I can think of two reasons why they selected September. The first is a short term issue. There is too much demand for the 2012 race (given the problems in 2011 registration, and the fact that BQ times won't officially lower until 2013). The other is an ongoing with setting travel plans. It used to be that one could run a spring marathon, qualify, book flight and hotel, and then leisurely register sometime in December. Now, a large number of runners will have to wait until the 2nd week of Registration before they can actually make any plans. Besides, you will only have to wait 1 year. This will be a boon for all 38 year olds who get to qualify as 40 year olds!!
Belgian Waffle wrote:
They did not solve the other and bigger problem -- Fall qualifiers (Chicago, NYC, MCM, Philadelphia, Twin Cities, any number of others) being shut out because registration closed too early (first happened for 2008 or 2009 race). It used to be that registration did not close until soon before the race.
Does anyone know why they didn't just go with a Dec 31st Qualifying Deadline? The mid-September deadline is effectively closes legitimate qualifying chances by late Spring. It still would have left plenty of time to see how the race filled up.
EZ10Miler wrote:
Is it up to Boston to prop up these other races? I'm just glad they did something to make sure people that qualify can get in.
Aren't qualifying times closer to the actual race more relevant? It is not about Boston propping up these races at all.
The issue is the qualifying period now closes, for all intents and purposes, closes almost a year before the race -- June through August is not optimal marathoning weather (and even May and September can be iffy in most places in the US). If they had the registration start on Dec 12 (or Jan 12) instead of Sept 12, they should still be able to easily process all of the entries.
Belgian Waffle wrote:
They only solved one problem -- qualified people getting shut out completely (first time it was an issue was for 2011 race).
.
Ii actually didn't solve this problem. It exacerbated it.
The problem of qualified people getting shut out had nothing to do with their times or races but their inability to operate a computer in an 8-hr window. it's a race with a limited field - people will always get shut out as long as it sells out. ALWAYS
With the New system you could run a "BQ" time and if it's not fast enough under the BQ, you don't get in. Thus in theory you are "qualified" But no race for you.
It means the a runner will never know the real qualifying time, until he/she registers. That's my problem with it.
If the BAA Had some balls, they would have just significantly lowered the standards and left it at that and none of this preferred entry BS.
The Boston marathon is a circus. Marathoning is becoming a walking sport. And it's funny because as a runner, people always ask me, are you running Boston? Answer is always the same, NO. I would not drop $200 to run a road race. I would rather run a race against the clock on an XC course any day of the week. Boston has become the FACEBOOK of running...look at me...I ran Boston......who cares about my time.
Cheerio
KEALS wrote:
The Boston marathon is a circus. Marathoning is becoming a walking sport. And it's funny because as a runner, people always ask me, are you running Boston? Answer is always the same, NO. I would not drop $200 to run a road race. I would rather run a race against the clock on an XC course any day of the week. Boston has become the FACEBOOK of running...look at me...I ran Boston......who cares about my time.
Cheerio
Not true. To the general public when you say "I ran a Marathon" they're like "Oh, like Oprah, that's great". When you say "I ran Boston" they say "Oh, you qualified for it". When you say "yes" they answer "WOW you must be fast". If your answer is "I got in through Charity" they would think "Oh, so he runs like Oprah". :)
They selected September because they want your money in September not January. It's as simple as that!
Heck for Hood To Coast you put your check in for the lottery in October for an event in August. Opening in September for a race in April is not that bizarre to me.
For an Ironman, you can register immediately after the race for the next year's race--yep, one year away.
KIP litton can use his Vermont City marathon time (2:49) and register on the first day!!!
Oh yeah kip is in his 40s, so it should be easy. He'll register first day for sure
Wow, they really screwed over some marathons like Big Sur (September 17th, 2011). You can't use a time from it for the 2012 Boston Marathon until after the first of the "Q minus 5"'ers get first dibs. Then you can't use your 2011 time at all for 2013. You got hand it to the old cronies at the BAA -- it took them almost four months to figure out how to stick it to a few marathons.
Am I the only one who reads it that of the "Just Qualified," they are picking the Q-4's first, then the Q-3's, then the Q-2's, then the Q-1's, then the Q's, and then the Q+1's (at least for the 2011 Registration Process). Of course they maybe using some other formula, like the fastest 20% in each age group. The BAA went out of their way to not tell us what formula they are going to use (of course this is probably these idiots need another six months to figure out a formula).
Leonardo DiCrapio wrote:
Wow, they really screwed over some marathons like Big Sur (September 17th, 2011).
Last time I checked Big Sur was in spring.
Nutella1 wrote:
Not true. To the general public when you say "I ran a Marathon" they're like "Oh, like Oprah, that's great". When you say "I ran Boston" they say "Oh, you qualified for it". When you say "yes" they answer "WOW you must be fast". If your answer is "I got in through Charity" they would think "Oh, so he runs like Oprah". :)
Do you really think the general public knows you have to qualify for Boston? Your local 5k hobbyjogger probably doesn't even know that.
I would garner to say most of the general public does know what the Boston Marathon is or at least have heard of it. They probably don't know too many details (they probably think it starts in Boston), but they at least know of the name of the race.
The conversation would probably go more like this..."I ran a marathon" and then the general public would say "Oh, have you run the Boston Marathon?". When you say "yes", they answer "How long is that one?"
In a word: GOOD.
The times were slipping and were symbolic of the slower runners ruling the roost. In other words: " rather it be a great accomplishment to qualify for the greatest marathon, just slow the times down so anyone can get in..."
I say if you are under 40 and can not break 7:30 pace = approx 3:16, then run anyone of the hundred other races. Not this one. And, if you are under 50 and can not break 3:30, see you later!
Females want gender equity? Want the TitleIX treatment? Sure : females under 30 3:20 cutoff. 30-39? 3:30 41-49?
3:50. What does this do?
It brings a wow factor back. It gives anyone some pride that they got in, let alone finished in 5 hours because they raised money for charity. This is the grandaddy. It should mean SOMETHING when you are accepted to this race.
I ran this race 5x, starting when I was 38, and averaged 2:47. After that, I never went back because I feel it is not fair. This race deserves better performances.
Who cares what the general public thinks about your running?
You are SO right! I turn 50 a couple of weeks before Boston, so I get 4:05??? I am not that great a runner, ran a mediocre marathon last month and ran a 3:23. Qualified with 42 minutes to spare??? Bottom line: if you want an easy pass to Boston, be old and female .....