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'd be in favor of the change just so there'd be less interest in these downhill races, and then (hopefully) they'd start to die out or change the courses to be qualifiers. I have no interest in running one, as I want an accurate measure of my fitness (and don't want to deal with the pounding). The two main marathons in my state are both downhill races and it'd be nice to not have to plan to travel out of state.
What's interesting about the Utah point in particular to me is that many of the people running downhill races there aren't doing it to chase an inflated time, but because they're the bigger races in the state. I guess the entire state of Utah has inflated marathon times whether they seek them or not.
yes. lower the time standards. do they have "charity" runners? get rid of that crap.
Agreed. Nix the charity runners. And nix the other 'free ride' invites. Bring it back to a premier athletic event. If the charity contributors are that in to their charity contributions, why do they need the BM to facilitate their contributions? Why? Because they choose to BUY entry than to bust their ass to earn entry. That's why. Does anyone really believe that the Charity Entries would be as big as it is if their BM finisher's medal noted "Charity Contributor Runner"? Or if it has a big "C" in the middle of Spike's neck? Or if the ribbon on the medal was distinct and totally different?
How about the BAA produced three (3) different medals: One for Elite Invites, one for qualified (including making any cut), and one for charity and corporate/celebrity/corporate invites.
IMO anything less than the Elites and Qualified (making the cut) runners rank right up there with Stolen Valor. The BAA has better look deeper into their ever-progressing trend and wake (unwoke) up or the allure of the Boston Marathon will be no longer.
When I think about it, 1/3 of the field being charity makes getting into Boston via time qualifier not that different from getting into Chicago that way. If Boston was time qualifying only, it would mean running that race meant you were a good amateur, but with 1/3 of the field not from that it doesn't necessarily mean that. The only difference between Chicago and Boston time qualifying is the couple minutes faster you'd need to be to get in to Boston. It doesn't feel like a whole different thing when it's only 2/3 of the field.
What's interesting about the Utah point in particular to me is that many of the people running downhill races there aren't doing it to chase an inflated time, but because they're the bigger races in the state. I guess the entire state of Utah has inflated marathon times whether they seek them or not.
They also are racing at some degree of altitude. Despite the Kilian Jornets of the world claiming it doesn't count below 8000', a lot of Utah is at 4000-5000' and that's still a substantial blow to your aerobic capacity, which somewhat compromises the positive benefit of a lot of downhill.
To your other point about Chicago, unlike the other major lottery races Chicago's lottery is actually quite easy to "win", with a 50-60% chance of getting drawn. I've had friends, say, enter 3 times and get picked all three times. Compare that to London, Berlin, NYC, Tokyo where you could enter their lottery every year until Medicare and it's likely you never get picked once.
Everyone want to be a hero. Everyone wants to submit their better form of the mousetrap. Everyone wants to virtue signal be helping the underdog. Everyone wants to twist the rules to facilitate their entry. And what do you end up with. Pre-kindergarten 'T-Ball' where everyone gets a trophy and everyone gets to participate.
Look at the Olympics. Every 4 years they create a few more events, as well as categories within events. Breakdancing, 3x3 basketball, skateboarding, etc. How many running events and how many swimming events do you need to establish 'the best in the world'?
Every year at BM qualification registration we hear from all of the wanna-be's and marginal runners who claim - NOT FAIR.
What's interesting about the Utah point in particular to me is that many of the people running downhill races there aren't doing it to chase an inflated time, but because they're the bigger races in the state. I guess the entire state of Utah has inflated marathon times whether they seek them or not.
They also are racing at some degree of altitude. Despite the Kilian Jornets of the world claiming it doesn't count below 8000', a lot of Utah is at 4000-5000' and that's still a substantial blow to your aerobic capacity, which somewhat compromises the positive benefit of a lot of downhill.
To your other point about Chicago, unlike the other major lottery races Chicago's lottery is actually quite easy to "win", with a 50-60% chance of getting drawn. I've had friends, say, enter 3 times and get picked all three times. Compare that to London, Berlin, NYC, Tokyo where you could enter their lottery every year until Medicare and it's likely you never get picked once.
I moved from Utah to northern Virginia this summer, so I went from training and racing at altitude to training and racing at sea level, and I'm only just getting back to my 5k PR level. My PR there was still set in Utah, and I think I'll beat it soon, but not because of any altitude difference.
I moved from Utah to northern Virginia this summer, so I went from training and racing at altitude to training and racing at sea level, and I'm only just getting back to my 5k PR level. My PR there was still set in Utah, and I think I'll beat it soon, but not because of any altitude difference.
Well, you also got to Virginia when it was warm and humid, a bit of a contrast from sometimes hot but always dry Utah, and that takes some adjustment... never mind the stress and effort that moving requires. I'm not surprised you're only now getting back to form.
For those who don't click links on Letsrun, the post is:
"Imagine two runners who run a BQ. One has run Boston six times and the other has never run it before. Currently, the bib goes to the faster runner, and we never _ever_ question whether that is the right result. I think we can do better. I think the Majors can do better."
I ran Boston in 1982 and I had to run sub 2:50 to qualify so I don't understand the fuss about running 2:55 to qualify. I don't care for the 6 hour charity runners who bought their way in but I doubt they'll do anything to change that because of the money.
Young ones have to feel like they're special in everything they do.
I'm completely fine with the system they have now, and I got shut out this year. I've run it several times but didn't quite make the grade this year. The system is fair - it may not be perfect, but it's fair how they sort out the fastest people with qualifying times regardless of age group. If you don't like it, don't run it.
There is so much whining about Boston:
*The standards are too easy - well, they're adjusting them to make it a little tougher. If you say a sub 3 marathon is no big deal, congratulations to you - most of the people on LR apparently are ALL capable of sub 2:20 based on how they denigrate 2:30-3:00 marathoners so if that makes them feel better, rock on. *Women's standards are easier than men's - who is to say? Whatever they set it at, someone will complain it's too hard for them and too easy for the other group. Comparing it to the gaps in pro running is pointless - we're talking non-professional runners. I'm guessing they targeted time standards that were approximately the top 5-10% of each gender and age group across a number of races - seems like a fair enough figure to me. *Age group standards are too hard for certain groups - again, whatever they set it at, someone will whine. I had to work reasonably hard to qualify when I was young, then got a little more time and a BQ felt like nothing for years - I was also improving a lot as a runner so it was a combination of a few more minutes on my BQ and much better training. Now I'm on the other side - even with even more time, it has become a challenge with injuries, aging, other responsibilities. Some runners age like wine, some age like milk - they'll never set a standard that EVERYONE says "Yup, they nailed it - totally fair!" *Too many charity runners - I'm fine with it. They're a big part of the story line at Boston every year, they raise a ton of $ for good causes, they don't get preferred starting position compared to qualifiers, and the nut they have to raise is pretty big - if you don't like it, then don't donate to them. You feel they're taking your spot? Run faster *Price gouging - I'm more inclined to agree with this but not for the BAA necessarily - the hotels are CRAZY expensive. If anything, this will be what keeps me from running it every year like I used to. A hotel near the finish I used to stay at was $300-400/night, and now it's $1000...forget that! But unless there is a way to change the laws of supply & demand, I just have to decide if I think it's worth it.
I'm completely fine with the system they have now, and I got shut out this year. I've run it several times but didn't quite make the grade this year. The system is fair - it may not be perfect, but it's fair how they sort out the fastest people with qualifying times regardless of age group. If you don't like it, don't run it.
Totally agree. Part of prepping for the BM, or any other marathon, is to study the event - every single minute detail of the event. Everyone vying for a spot at the BM surely has access to all the past history of qualifying times, acceptance margins, weather, etc. Being 10 minutes faster than you AG BQ has historically be a safe bet. Train to it on the BQ course your plan to use. The system the BAA has is just fine - no complaints.
I remember when he was actually trying to get better and chased a sub 3 marathon. Instead of trying to get stronger and faster, he just turned into a complete shill for brands and free bibs. He's just trying to keep his audience happy by stirring the pot.
I worked my tail off to qualify and I would hate it if there was a sympathy entry into Boston. It wouldn't mean as much, IMO. I've never run it, and although I've had health issues that set me back, I'm proud to have worked so hard to qualify with plenty of time to spare. I didn't complain that the qualifying times were too hard. I ran more and worked harder.
It's not that complicated
He is a nobody runner that caters to the same. I wish actual elite runners put up more contents. Gwen was one of them. She used to put up Nike workout videos when she ran with them. Like you said, Ko basically panders to what his hobby joggers want to hear to grow his business. Who are these people actually want to meet Ko in person at these races? He is a 3 hour marathoner. Please. So fairness would be have young men running 3:30 BQ by eliminating repeat runners? I am all for charity runners. Keep them. Actually, their participation at least have some beneficial societal and altruism values. People complaining because they can't run faster enough is only for their selfish reasons.