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.
You should probably just embrace the fact that you are pretty fit and talented. Your perspective just comes off like a humblebrag.
Historically I've qualified easily but big injuries/nothing adding up in 2021 and early 2022, I was really happy to requalify end of 22 and early this year, even if it was only a 2:57... as long as you don't think it's owed to you it's fine to wish you got in I think
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.
You're more talented than you give yourself credit. Yeah, you wouldn't have been talented enough to make a D1 squad or even make state finals in a distance event. Boston doesn't require top 1% or even top 10% talent. My guess is top 20-25% talent. Nothing crazy.
I've seen a lot of people try really hard for years and not get anywhere near 2:54(or the age-graded equivalent). 6:38 pace for 26 miles is no joke. A large majority of people could never get near that(or the age/gender equivalent).
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.
It is NOT crystal clear because the standard changes EVERY YEAR and you don’t know what it is until AFTER you apply. Why even bother having a qualifying time if qualifying doesn’t mean you get in?!
You’re probably a dumb Gen Zer so you don’t know that more than 15 years ago if you qualified then YOU GOT IN TO BOSTON.
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.
It is NOT crystal clear because the standard changes EVERY YEAR and you don’t know what it is until AFTER you apply. Why even bother having a qualifying time if qualifying doesn’t mean you get in?!
You’re probably a dumb Gen Zer so you don’t know that more than 15 years ago if you qualified then YOU GOT IN TO BOSTON.
They can't have an exact cutoff time. If they did that this year they would have 11K too many people. Those tiny narrow streets can't accommodate those crowds. It's not hard to comprehend.
This happens all the time in running. There's no exact time to qualify for regionals/nationals in NCAA track. Same with XC. It depends on how everyone else does.
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.
You would've loved old-timey Boston in 1980-86, when the 19-39 men's qualifying standard was 2:50.
And I'm pretty sure they didn't even have super shoes back then.
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.
You're more talented than you give yourself credit. Yeah, you wouldn't have been talented enough to make a D1 squad or even make state finals in a distance event. Boston doesn't require top 1% or even top 10% talent. My guess is top 20-25% talent. Nothing crazy.
I've seen a lot of people try really hard for years and not get anywhere near 2:54(or the age-graded equivalent). 6:38 pace for 26 miles is no joke. A large majority of people could never get near that(or the age/gender equivalent).
Even off of 60-70mpw? I guess its just hard for me to believe since I am not really even that competitive at ultras but I always see so much stuff about ultra runners being slow, especially here. Like I seriously don't think I am fast at all, not trying to humble brag. Maybe I am more just naive and having only done ultras, it just seems like to me maybe some folks just need to try running longer/more mileage.
Charity runners should be eliminated. This is (supposed to be) the only marathon you can get in by qualifying times, that's why it's special. If you're not good enough, watch from the sidelines.
I'd love to play in the superbowl but I suck, so I watch.
Even off of 60-70mpw? I guess it’s just hard for me to believe since I am not really even that competitive at ultras but I always see so much stuff about ultra runners being slow, especially here. Like I seriously don't think I am fast at all, not trying to humble brag. Maybe I am more just naive and having only done ultras, it just seems like to me maybe some folks just need to try running longer/more mileage.
People think ultra-running sub-elites are slow and less talented relative to marathoning sub-elites or elites. But this is a discussion about hobbyjoggers not sub-elites, who we all are keenly aware aren’t super-talented or fast on that level.
You're more talented than you give yourself credit. Yeah, you wouldn't have been talented enough to make a D1 squad or even make state finals in a distance event. Boston doesn't require top 1% or even top 10% talent. My guess is top 20-25% talent. Nothing crazy.
I've seen a lot of people try really hard for years and not get anywhere near 2:54(or the age-graded equivalent). 6:38 pace for 26 miles is no joke. A large majority of people could never get near that(or the age/gender equivalent).
Even off of 60-70mpw? I guess its just hard for me to believe since I am not really even that competitive at ultras but I always see so much stuff about ultra runners being slow, especially here. Like I seriously don't think I am fast at all, not trying to humble brag. Maybe I am more just naive and having only done ultras, it just seems like to me maybe some folks just need to try running longer/more mileage.
Maybe, but for most people there is a short time in their life when they can run that mileage, and then age gets in the way, either physically, or life circumstances, or both. Then they end up trying to qualify on 40 miles a week, which is really hard unless you have a good bit of talent.
Those people should do trail-running/biking/other volume instead of high mileage. Runners don't realize that you can get serious aerobic development from cross training. The marathon doesn't require specificity to the extent that something like the mile does. Do serious high volume cross training and long thresholds, some Daniels R workouts, and a few 5k races, and you'll solidly BQ.
11000 people that saved $3000 to $6000 by not paying for an expensive race $230, traveling to Boston, paying to stay in an over priced Holiday Inn Express, buying $300 in Boston Marathon gear, and eating $200 or more in race weekend food. I’d stay that the merchants of Boston are the ones that go home devastated. I’d happy to not foot the bill for a Boston Marathon.
I don't 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.
I tell the people I run with that qualifying is easy. All you need to do is get old, stay healthy and don't slow down.
You are right that most people can do it but the variables include time, other priorities and health. Maybe the person needs more time to lose more weight. Maybe they are serious but other life priorities are larger priorities. Maybe there were health issues. Staying healthy is sometimes the hardest part.
I had a ten year streak but I don't think I ever needed the early registration. I normally only run one marathon a year. I missed the BQ at Boston in a bad weather year and then sciatica happened and I couldn't run another race before registration. I've gotten close to my 2018 times but then back and nerve issues returned. I was over 3 minutes under BQ this year despite thinking I couldn't start a week before the race. Without the nerve issues I was expecting about a minus 20 to 25 (my BQ was minus 27 on a flat course).
I'm not complaining but I understand the frustration people have when then think they ran a BQ 11 months ago.
What I don't understand is why so many people think the solution is simple. I doubt the BAA is keeping the field size down on purpose. The local towns can limit the field size in their permits. The only way a BQ application time can be guaranteed to be a BQ acceptance time is either make the standards much tougher and/or go back to registration speed. Registration speed can be on registration day in September with servers crashing etc. Or open registration the Tuesday after the race (or at noon on race day), but even that might have sold out in one day this year.
I should have registered as non-binary this year. I would have easily made the cut.
When are we going to discuss the brave 44 non-binary qualifiers? So these are biological men that beat the women’s standard? Maybe two or three are fast biological women that beat the men’s standard? If I was disqualified by a few seconds, I’d be looking straight there. This is where the zero sum nature of this idiocy is exhibited.
When are we going to discuss the brave 44 non-binary qualifiers? So these are biological men that beat the women’s standard? Maybe two or three are fast biological women that beat the men’s standard? If I was disqualified by a few seconds, I’d be looking straight there. This is where the zero sum nature of this idiocy is exhibited.
Yes, it's about time we addressed the 0.001% of qualifiers, which is clearly the issue at hand.
When are we going to discuss the brave 44 non-binary qualifiers? So these are biological men that beat the women’s standard? Maybe two or three are fast biological women that beat the men’s standard? If I was disqualified by a few seconds, I’d be looking straight there. This is where the zero sum nature of this idiocy is exhibited.
Yes, it's about time we addressed the 0.001% of qualifiers, which is clearly the issue at hand.
Apparently 2024 Boston marathon will have about 4,400,000 runners. Amazing!
Even off of 60-70mpw? I guess it’s just hard for me to believe since I am not really even that competitive at ultras but I always see so much stuff about ultra runners being slow, especially here. Like I seriously don't think I am fast at all, not trying to humble brag. Maybe I am more just naive and having only done ultras, it just seems like to me maybe some folks just need to try running longer/more mileage.
People think ultra-running sub-elites are slow and less talented relative to marathoning sub-elites or elites. But this is a discussion about hobbyjoggers not sub-elites, who we all are keenly aware aren’t super-talented or fast on that level.
Right. But I am an ultrahobbyjogger so I should be even slower!
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?
Because they're stuck. They need the revenue of a sold out race, but aren't willing to risk setting a standard that might reduce headcount and revue. Better to annoy a handful of people that will just be back next year rather than lose money this year.
So when they have less people than wanted through qualifying times, then they would just open to first come first serve regardless of those marks. There will be always enough people who will wait for such opportunity.