For #1 - I meant "without age adjustment"
For #1 - I meant "without age adjustment"
joay11 wrote:
pretzel man wrote:
I was able to run 20 consecutive years mostly re-qualifying for Boston at Boston. After the stroke and with all the rehabbing I have done my average pace is a minute slower than it used to be. My neurologist says with the nerve damage to the left side of my body that's as good as it's going to be, And I'm okay with that because I am still alive and running/jogging. Will I try to re-qualify of course Will it happen probably not.
20 years of qualifying, that's impressive.
If you just miss it, I might tell that story to the BAA, and they may make an exception. You're only 5 years from the quarter century club
Thank you, that was the original plan was to make it to 25 and done. I'll see how I do this October and then re- evaluate. Excuse the talk to text.
Do we have any idea how many total applicants there were?
Mike_Milburys_Shoe wrote:
Do we have any idea how many total applicants there were?
Unfortunately no. The BAA has typically posted this information a few day after registration has closed and before all the acceptance emails have been sent. I suspect we'll hear sometime between now and Thursday
john.erme@gmail.comwrote:
I think allowing runners to pass into next age group without rerunning for their latest age isn't fair. Anyone within 5 minutes of my cutoff time who aged into the next group over the last 2.5 years now jumps ahead of me up to 5 minutes. My suggestion that I sent to the race directors last year was to only allow (1) those who registered for 2020 register to re-register for 2021 with age adjustment and (2) those who ran a qualified subsequent to the 2020 qualifying period. I think the cutoff will be high - 8 minutes . Lots of pent up demand.
I agree. It creates an artificial advantage for some simply based on luck.
It wouldn’t have been that hard to parse out the submitted times into groups based on when BQ was completed and adjust the ages accordingly.
pretzel man wrote:
joay11 wrote:
20 years of qualifying, that's impressive.
If you just miss it, I might tell that story to the BAA, and they may make an exception. You're only 5 years from the quarter century club
Thank you, that was the original plan was to make it to 25 and done. I'll see how I do this October and then re- evaluate. Excuse the talk to text.
Did they count the virtual last year as part of the streak? I was qualified but elected to not to do the 26 mile training run when the dewpoint was 77. Otherwise known as a “virtual race.”
surveys sayss wrote:
pretzel man wrote:
Thank you, that was the original plan was to make it to 25 and done. I'll see how I do this October and then re- evaluate. Excuse the talk to text.
Did they count the virtual last year as part of the streak? I was qualified but elected to not to do the 26 mile training run when the dewpoint was 77. Otherwise known as a “virtual race.”
I did not participate in any virtual race, I need a clock or another human to consider it a real race. So to answer your question I did not submit any time.
I'm surprised all the predictions are so high. I think it'll be merely 50 seconds, based on Google Trends analysis of the search term "Boston marathon registration" as a proxy for site traffic.
markpan wrote:
I'm surprised all the predictions are so high. I think it'll be merely 50 seconds, based on Google Trends analysis of the search term "Boston marathon registration" as a proxy for site traffic.
Thanks for sharing that, good data point... and anecdotally this cutoff prediction thread is usually much, much longer at this stage of the game. I think for people who have mostly gone back to living their life as normal, it would seem "normal" that the demand to run Boston is the same. But there's definitely a large segment of the population, I'd put it in the 25% range, who are content to stay home, abide by the CDC guidelines for living in fear, and definitely not consider participating in an event with 20,000 people.
NobodyHome wrote:
markpan wrote:
I'm surprised all the predictions are so high. I think it'll be merely 50 seconds, based on Google Trends analysis of the search term "Boston marathon registration" as a proxy for site traffic.
Thanks for sharing that, good data point... and anecdotally this cutoff prediction thread is usually much, much longer at this stage of the game. I think for people who have mostly gone back to living their life as normal, it would seem "normal" that the demand to run Boston is the same. But there's definitely a large segment of the population, I'd put it in the 25% range, who are content to stay home, abide by the CDC guidelines for living in fear, and definitely not consider participating in an event with 20,000 people.
It's funny you say that, I didn't even think of that. These "cutoff prediction" threads are usually 20 to 30 pages by this point.
markpan: How did you parse the data? The Google Trends website isn't very good. Definitely less hits than in previous years, but I can't figure out the magnitude of the difference.
I love it
I'm with you.
Ah yes sorry for not sharing more details! Here's the direct link to the query I'm looking at:
It's not highly correlated with number of registrants per year (for instance, the 10/2017 registration for the 2018 Boston Marathon had fewer searches, but still more than this past week), but the registrants per year doesn't seem to have changed more than ~15% in the past ~5 years.
markpan wrote:
Ah yes sorry for not sharing more details! Here's the direct link to the query I'm looking at:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2018-08-01%202021-04-21&geo=US&q=boston%20marathon%20registrationIt's not highly correlated with number of registrants per year (for instance, the 10/2017 registration for the 2018 Boston Marathon had fewer searches, but still more than this past week), but the registrants per year doesn't seem to have changed more than ~15% in the past ~5 years.
It's seems mindblowing but if those numbers even roughly correlate with actual registrars, there might not even be 16,000 people that registered.
joay11 wrote:
markpan wrote:
Ah yes sorry for not sharing more details! Here's the direct link to the query I'm looking at:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2018-08-01%202021-04-21&geo=US&q=boston%20marathon%20registrationIt's not highly correlated with number of registrants per year (for instance, the 10/2017 registration for the 2018 Boston Marathon had fewer searches, but still more than this past week), but the registrants per year doesn't seem to have changed more than ~15% in the past ~5 years.
It's seems mindblowing but if those numbers even roughly correlate with actual registrars, there might not even be 16,000 people that registered.
I actually thought the virtual would sell out by now. It’s been a month. I’m on the side that it’s not even close to a sell out. Maybe half. Does anyone have stats on numbers for the largest virtual races? Like how many do the spam races on Facebook get?
I was also thinking the cutoff would be small. A lot of foreigners will not travel. And there’s people like me that don’t want an Boston experience that consists of wearing a mask for two days, getting dropped off in Hopkinton, running in more questionable weather than April, then immediately being shooed out of the finishing area.
It's probably silly to think this way, but if the cutoff is easy because of low interest, I hate that there will be a stigma to having qualified for "that" Boston Marathon.
IndyJJ wrote:
It's probably silly to think this way, but if the cutoff is easy because of low interest, I hate that there will be a stigma to having qualified for "that" Boston Marathon.
It is silly to think that way. There will be no stigma. Most are just impressed you ran Boston at all. The number of people who could actually tell you what the cutoff was each year is tiny. The number of those who would stigmatize you even smaller.
The true measure is your actual time run on one of the most iconic courses in marathon running. Make it a fun run and sure, some serious runners will judge you. My best advice is to give it your best. No matter what happens, you'll always come out with a great story to tell, and maybe a solid time. My 2nd fastest marathon time was at Boston in 18, in the monsoon. It was a better effort, and three minutes slower than my PR. But hands down the most eventful, entertaining and fun marathon I've ever run.
IndyJJ wrote:
It's probably silly to think this way, but if the cutoff is easy because of low interest, I hate that there will be a stigma to having qualified for "that" Boston Marathon.
My opinion is it's unlikely there will be a "stigma." In fact, it may be the opposite, since after years have gone by and people forget the details, they may only remember it as, "The Boston they let so few people in." It may appear in hindsight, more exclusive.
As long as they keep the qualifying times where they are, and you qualified, then you qualified. On the other hand, if there's so few people registering where they get rid of qualifying (like the virtual) or add 10 or 20 minutes to make the cutoffs absurdly easy, that would be a whole different situation entirely.
joay11 wrote:
markpan wrote:
Ah yes sorry for not sharing more details! Here's the direct link to the query I'm looking at:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2018-08-01%202021-04-21&geo=US&q=boston%20marathon%20registrationIt's not highly correlated with number of registrants per year (for instance, the 10/2017 registration for the 2018 Boston Marathon had fewer searches, but still more than this past week), but the registrants per year doesn't seem to have changed more than ~15% in the past ~5 years.
It's seems mindblowing but if those numbers even roughly correlate with actual registrars, there might not even be 16,000 people that registered.
I wonder if that's why we have yet to hear anything about how many applicants there were