Hopefully they keep this in hand and don't turn it into a London marathon style race where the organizers are indifferent to club running and big up 12 hour marawalks as "inspiring content".
-
120
-
ShannonP1124 wrote:
oldguy00 wrote:
Lol, you make it sound like most people can simply 'train' to get whatever time they'd like! Oooookay....
Some of us a 'alpha males' and some are not.
I can’t tell if you are donkey-brained or a troll at this point
72 -
I ran 4:18 under, so I missed the cut off. It sucks, but I knew the risk of being cut when I entered.
Honestly, it just makes me more hungry to crush Chicago next weekend. Hope to get my 3rd BQ and actually be able to use it for 2025 🤞
402 -
CLF2023 wrote:
I ran 4:18 under, so I missed the cut off. It sucks, but I knew the risk of being cut when I entered.
Honestly, it just makes me more hungry to crush Chicago next weekend. Hope to get my 3rd BQ and actually be able to use it for 2025 🤞
Honest question, having known you needed a minute faster, would you have done anything different in your training or racing? The reason why I ask is some others have implied people in your spot would have done something different had they known they needed to run faster to qualify. My thought is most people train and race as best they can and the results are what they are. Maybe I'm wrong.
251 -
Some statistics regarding Boston qualifying (courtesy of the yearly BAA statement)
50 -
I understand that men who have a 2:55 time and not getting in, but that needs to be put into perspective. I qualified with 3:10 achieved at Berlin (a flat or fast course whatever your preference) in 2022 as a 55 yr old man. I would suggest that a 55 yr male getting a 3:10 compares quite favorable to a 30 male 2:55 time. But agree that the qualification times need to be revisited but the notion that a 2:55 time is automatic is not something that many people would agree with.
174 -
O\'whore wrote:
rojo wrote:
Can someone please tell me why they do this stupid thing every year? How in the world is it a qualifying time if it doesn't get you into the race? Why don't they just set an actual time that if you hit you are in, period?
The Olympics and Worlds have qualifying times, but hitting it doesn't always get you into the race. Do you understand how that works?
Of course he does. He’s trolling to keep the hits coming.
52 -
BostonsBabyBillysBibleBonkers2 wrote:
ShannonP1124 wrote:
Some of us a 'alpha males' and some are not.
I can’t tell if you are donkey-brained or a troll at this point
I'm in with BQ-22. I trained for BQ-20. Some train for what they want to do: They use words like 'I hope', 'I'd like to', 'My goal is', (like betting on the come at the craps table) and some of us train for what we're going to do. I don't work toward goals - I work toward gonna's.
Oh, BTW, did you make it in?
518 -
All them people today getting that rejection email....
120 -
I dont understand why its so hard for serious runners to BQ. I am just a slow ultra runner but I ran a 'BQ time' for my age as a split during a 50k trail race. Seems like anyone who really trains should be able to do it.
732 -
I would, and HAVE done something different for this training block to get faster for Chi. Lessons learned by hitting a BQ but not hitting my A goal that I've worked into my 16 week block for Chicago Marathon:
Strength training every week, no weeks skipped-Especially leg days ;)
More structured speed/track workouts
More Longer workouts/runs , especially with speed mixed in
Nutrition- Higher carbs, drink mix/gel/chews on all long runs and hard workouts to stay fueled
I don't think I would have been able to eek out more than a minute for my PR and fastest BQ last year I used to qualify, so no hard feelings towards the BAA- Congrats, and love to the PPl who made it.
52 -
runnER/DR wrote:
Itliterallyis wrote:
It quite literally IS a moving goal post every single year and that is the problem. You never know if you have to be 7 minutes under or 4 or if everyone will get in. It’s absurd and takes away from the whole magic of finally achieving a BQ. If they need to tighten up the qualifying standards again, particularly for women, then DO IT. But running a BQ time should mean you actually get in to the race.
And men who run 2:55 not getting in is absolutely f$!&ing absurd! And I’m a woman saying that.
Why do people think they're entitled to run Boston? The BAA is crystal clear about the qualification process. I'm sure those 11,000 people are all disappointed. But hitting the standard only allows you to apply. People get rejected almost every year.
The BAA has no way of knowing how many people will apply and what their times will be. They try to estimate best they can. But they are extremely limited on the field size due to the logistical constraints of the course.
I'm sure people would like to see fewer charity runners. But these people raise enormous amounts of money for a good cause. The BAA has made a conscious decision to keep this number sizeable.
Those runners do raise a good amount for charity (that could also be raised independent of the marathon), but the BAA also gets a cut of those charity funds - an amount that's considerably higher than the registration fee for a qualified runner - and so has an incentive to allow more charity runners.
70 -
ShannonP1124 wrote:
BostonsBabyBillysBibleBonkers2 wrote:
I can’t tell if you are donkey-brained or a troll at this point
I'm in with BQ-22. I trained for BQ-20. Some train for what they want to do: They use words like 'I hope', 'I'd like to', 'My goal is', (like betting on the come at the craps table) and some of us train for what we're going to do. I don't work toward goals - I work toward gonna's.
Oh, BTW, did you make it in?
Ok so you are donkey-brained.
Yes, I did make it in82 -
why do people struggle wrote:
I dont understand why its so hard for serious runners to BQ. I am just a slow ultra runner but I ran a 'BQ time' for my age as a split during a 50k trail race. Seems like anyone who really trains should be able to do it.
FINALLY. It is NOT that hard.
412 -
ShannonP1124 wrote:
why do people struggle wrote:
I dont understand why its so hard for serious runners to BQ. I am just a slow ultra runner but I ran a 'BQ time' for my age as a split during a 50k trail race. Seems like anyone who really trains should be able to do it.
FINALLY. It is NOT that hard.
If you're very talented or very fit with a ton of lifetime mileage, yeah it's not that hard.
But it's quite hard for a lot of people, probably a large majority of people.
Distance talent actually exists. It's a thing. Running sub-2:55 does actually require at least a moderate amount of talent.
251 -
Not naked wrote:
Does the B.A.A. still have a rule that people who have run 10 or more Boston Marathons in a row only have to meet the minimum standard?
If the still have that, anyone know how many people have a 10+ streak going? Is that a small number?
I am fine with the streak rule if it is still in place. Just curious if it played a part in having a much tougher qualifying standard than I thought it would be.
I barely recall reading this was canceled several years ago.
02 -
why do people struggle wrote:
I dont understand why its so hard for serious runners to BQ. I am just a slow ultra runner but I ran a 'BQ time' for my age as a split during a 50k trail race. Seems like anyone who really trains should be able to do it.
Generally, I think further your body type is away from thin and wiry, it gets harder. It's YMMV and there are other variables but thin people have it easier.
61 -
I am guessing most people just don't run enough mileage or are overweight or combo of the two.
I can tell you I am not talented. Never ran XC or track etc... picked up running ultras in my 30's and yeah I just went out doing 60-70mpw of mostly easy running, no structured speed training or anything and my marathon split was 3:10 (I was 40 at the time). Seemed easy enough to me that if I really wanted to run Boston it wouldn't be all that hard.
612 -
The 11,000 rejects should organize a marathon and run it on the same day.
142 -
Trump #1 wrote:
Not naked wrote:
Does the B.A.A. still have a rule that people who have run 10 or more Boston Marathons in a row only have to meet the minimum standard?
If the still have that, anyone know how many people have a 10+ streak going? Is that a small number?
I am fine with the streak rule if it is still in place. Just curious if it played a part in having a much tougher qualifying standard than I thought it would be.
I barely recall reading this was canceled several years ago.
Not true, 10 years will get you in if you meet the published standard, regardless of any added cut-off time. I believe 25 years will get you in automatically as long as you finish the race each year. You have to be pretty good to stay healthy and qualify for 10 or 25 years in a row though.
21
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun