Boston is closed

wowpow wrote:

women don't train as hard and aren't as competitive. i see exactly that where i live. there are lots of women runners, but most of them don't train hard at all, whereas the men are serious about their running.

I am a male that has run 2:39, there are a half dozen women that run the same streets as I do that kick my ass and out work me as well. I would be willing to bet that you would not be such a big talker if you lived in my town.

Wowpow is a jackass (to say the least) for this statement, but Rochester, where the hell do you live where there are even 6 chicks kicking the ass of a 2:39 guy? I'm a 2:34 guy and the only time I get beat by a woman is either at Boston or the Falmouth Road Race (maybe 3 girls) and the CVS 5k (where even Molly Huddle wouldn't have beat me if I ran this year.) Are you near the Westchester Track Club or Mammoth Lakes or something? I know plenty of women who likely outwork me, but I'm not sure of more than 10 nationally who could go faster than me at the 5k (15:24) or 1/2 (1:10) This ain't no brag, just plain math and wondering what kind of Super-Athena's live in your neck of the woods.

Since I was dubbed "Captain Hyperbole" earlier in this thread (and I love it,) I gotta give a little back here.

wowpow wrote:

i agree. the female qualifying times are absurdly slow. elite women run 15-20 minutes slower than men. why are boston qualifying times 30 minutes slower than men? i'll tell you why--women don't train as hard and aren't as competitive. i see exactly that where i live. there are lots of women runners, but most of them don't train hard at all, whereas the men are serious about their running.

lower the qualifying times for everyone, especially for women.

My training partner is in her 50's, regularly places high in her age group and is NAILS tough. I'd take her over most guys when it come to training and toughness.

That said, there are a lot of women running where I do and the majority are what you describe. She whips most of them no matter what the age.

In this case, I think the reason why the women stand out is more run for charities and they stand out as a big group. You have the badass women in the front of the pack, then they thin out in the middle, the are the majority toward the back.

I think its all perception, and there are even more men who are slugs.

Rochester Michigan Home of Hansons-Brooks

Desiree Davila 2:26

Melissa White 2:32

Dot Mc Mahan 2:35

Nicole Blasser 2:35

Emily Mortenson 2:39

Molly Pritz hasn't run one yet but kicks my tail

"Rochester Michigan Home of Hansons-Brooks

Desiree Davila 2:26

Melissa White 2:32

Dot Mc Mahan 2:35

Nicole Blasser 2:35

Emily Mortenson 2:39

Molly Pritz hasn't run one yet but kicks my tail"

Oh fine. Yeesh. Looks like I left out a rather significant part of the landscape there. My bad.

ok, guess i was too insulting too women in my earlier post. sorry. i know that there are many women that train as hard as men, e.g. the elites and many others. but i do not think that carries over for 'average' runners. i think there are many more male runners that train harder than there are females, and that the 30 minute difference in qualifying times is too much. i'm not saying there aren't women that train hard. i'm saying the percentages differ.

i'm clearly not the only one with this opinion--go back and look at earlier posts.

the relevant question is, how should the qualifying times be determined for sex and age? or even, what is the purpose of the qualifying times? they used to be to limit the size of the field. they don't serve that purpose anymore.

Rochester & others defending women (who I love BTW) you are using anecdotal evidence. Yes elite & sub-elite women train as hard as men, but I think as you go down the ladder a bit THEY DO NOT. Weekend Joes, in general, put it out there more than weekend Jane's, they are more competitive with their peers, and train harder. In short I think the gap between men & women standards should be closed, I think that possibly overall standards should also, or as has been suggested incorporate "wave" registration so the better runners have more opportunity to get in...why? Because they deserve it damn it they are faster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I say this from the persepective of a 45-49 male with a 3:13 PR, so I'm not "fast".

Rochester Proud wrote:

wowpow wrote:

women don't train as hard and aren't as competitive. i see exactly that where i live. there are lots of women runners, but most of them don't train hard at all, whereas the men are serious about their running.

I am a male that has run 2:39, there are a half dozen women that run the same streets as I do that kick my ass and out work me as well. I would be willing to bet that you would not be such a big talker if you lived in my town.

From being elite, Boston has now gone to a lower standard than either london or NYC. At least in London or NY you can get a guaranteed entry by running sub-3. That's not quick, but the BQ times are so slow that literally hundreds of thousands can meet them - where is the exclusivity in that?

Someone mentioned Fukuoka, there is also Beppu-Mainichi (sub 2:50) and other races in Japan where qualifying really means you have to run.

Either forget qualifying times (like Berlin) or drop them to keep the prestige; now its a half way house that is easily achievable by twice a week joggers.

They should even out the qualifying times -- run an age-graded equivalent of an open male 3:10:59 with 18 months of the race.

Take a look at history:

1993 - 1,854 women (21%)

1998 - 3,549 women (31%)

2007 - 7,975 women (39%)

2010 - 9,462 (42%)

42% is "a proportion that is higher than the percentage of all U.S. marathoners who are women. "

21% to 42% is huge! Without getting into the specifics of who works "harder", it appears that women's running has taken such strides (pun) that it is about time to re-evaluate the "30 min." guideline. An across-the-board drop in qual. times (say, 10 min.) would probably take out way more middle-aged men than women (I don't have the time/inclination to go through the exact stats). We could easily see the number of women outnumber the men. That's not the end of the world, but as a general guideline, it's probably good to have an equal percentage between qualifiers in various categories and the general marathon running population.

Rochester Proud wrote:

wowpow wrote:

women don't train as hard and aren't as competitive. i see exactly that where i live. there are lots of women runners, but most of them don't train hard at all, whereas the men are serious about their running.

I am a male that has run 2:39, there are a half dozen women that run the same streets as I do that kick my ass and out work me as well. I would be willing to bet that you would not be such a big talker if you lived in my town.

Okay, fine. Six out of how many? The guy you are responding to is correct in that there are a great deal of women who participate in this activity for the "social" aspect and have no desire to run fast or train hard. There are plenty of women's "training" groups that I see that have "fun, non competitive setting" highlighted in their literature.

I also would bet that you wouldn't be such a big talker if you came out here to my town. Plenty of guys well under 2:39 (I'm not one of them BTW).

Rochester Proud wrote:

Rochester Michigan Home of Hansons-Brooks

Desiree Davila 2:26

Melissa White 2:32

Dot Mc Mahan 2:35

Nicole Blasser 2:35

Emily Mortenson 2:39

Molly Pritz hasn't run one yet but kicks my tail

Well duh if you're talking about National Caliber elites.

I assume most of us are talking about the masses as these women don't need to worry about "qualifying" for Boston or getting on the computer to "register."

Some guys just make you wonder...

I wonder what percentage of people run under their respective qualifying time at Boston? Perhaps the qualifying window should be tightened up to 12 months, as well. There are a lot of 4 hour+ runners on race day, which seems weird. Or are they all charity runners?

They should mimmic what NY does

Have a more competitive elite entry level and also require that if one does not get into Boston for several years in a row, one is guaranteed entry.

They should mimmic what NY does

Have a more competitive elite entry level and also require that if one does not get into Boston for several years in a row, one is guaranteed entry.

More world class elite? 2:04-2:15? You would have to invite for athletes and pay out more places.

More National elite? 2:16-2:25? You would need to have a national pay out and comp more entry fees. I don't think 2:20 - 2:25 guys get the entry fee waived, but they have no problem being accepted after the race is full and they can line up in front of corral 1.

More state/local level elite or sub-elite? 2:25-2:40?

Or do you just want change the standard -5, -10, -15 or -20 minutes?

Perhaps it's time to add a third wave and another 10K runners to the race. The event is run with Nazi precision, and I'm sure the organizers could easily handle busing another load of runners to the Hopkinton. That would mean a fewer people missing out, plus more scratch in the bank for the BAA and charities.

Looks like there could be a back-door way to get into Boston, although it probably applies to a very small number of people.

My dad (who got in yesterday) made hotel reservations for Boston back in the summer. He made the reservations through a travel agency that has an official partnership with the BAA. People who already had reservations through the agency may still be allowed into Boston, since the agency is a BAA partner. Here's the text of the email they sent my dad today:

"Dear Runner,

We are sorry to hear that Boston online entry had closed out online before you had time to register. As the official travel agency for the Boston Marathon we are working to secure race entry to the 2011 Boston Marathon for clients who have a name on a pre-existing hotel reservation with us for the 2011 year prior to October 18, 2010 and who are currently qualified to participate in the race.

Please complete the information below and email it back to me. I will submit this information to the Boston Athletic Association on your behalf. Please retain a copy of this email as proof that I have received your initial request. Please, do not contact the BAA directly. They are working hard to work with us and we do not wish to repeat their efforts.

If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to email me. Please allow two weeks time for additional updates.

Best regards,

xxxxx xxxxx

Marathon Tours & Travel

C-5 Shipway Place

Boston, MA 02129"

That's nice, but all that means is more weirdos who reserved hotel rooms a year early have a chance of getting in.

My first was in 2003. I reserved my hotel room in December through Marathon tours and only 2 hotels were sold out. This year they were booked in the summer.

The race has become a destination event for 3:40+ women.

Lets face facts. The whole thing is a big money making operation from start to finish so lets do away with the charade of qualifying based on time altogether and auction off the spots to the highest 25,000 bidders, ebay style. That would insure that the slow ass runners (with money) would not be discriminated against if they had the cash to make a strong bid.

Nobody who can't break 3:30 should be let into Boston.