NYC / Boston Cutoffs

I agree it’s currently too harsh on runners from out of town trying to get in. I understand the NYRR’s duel objectives of 9+1/local halves to a) make a lot of money b) encourage local participation in races and the running scene. I wonder if they could make 9+1 into a 2-year program (12+2) so there aren’t instantaneous sellouts, unused bibs etc. I think if you can manage an extra trip to NYC to do a half (you can submit a non-NYRR half to get in), that’s gonna be the best way to get. Staten they keep reasonably priced at least. They could probably lower the half standards a minute (1:20) without much fuss. Boston should probably do something about the downhill marathons themselves.

Every race NYRR offers has become hard to get into. There may not be a running boom around the country...but in NYC there is a massive running boom and that is clogging up every NYRR event. It's not just the marathon.

Simple solution is to increase the amount of people allowed in each event but I understand there might logistical concerns with that.

Ah! The argument on downhill races lives on! It's within the rules of the B.A.A.. If you don't like it, then complain to them about it. Here's the other thing, for all the people crying about runners getting into Boston with a downhill race; GUESS WHAT?! You can go run that downhill race too! Give yourself the 'buffer' that everyone else is getting. These downhill races are not a club that is exclusive to certain regions of the world. Just like super shoes, everyone has access to them.

I don't think it's logistics....the city and the Central Park Conservancy cap the size of NYRR races.

I'm not familiar with the mechanics of the caps or if NYRR could pay for a bigger permit, but I believe the caps are the problem, not NYRR's will.

Some of us have a modicum of self-respect and want to feel like we earned our way in rather than engaging in high-risk, high-reward clown show antics where you let gravity push you down a mountain and hope your quads don't give out (and several courses have been designed with a gentle decline to decrease even that potential risk). It's true that the logical response is "fight fire with fire" or "if you can't beat'em, join'em," but this is a broader discussion about how to address the issue of an exponential increase in world major marathon interest with relatively fixed supply. Somebody has to get cut, and to me, this seems like the lowest hanging fruit because it is against the spirit of competition and time qualification and frankly, pathetic.

They’re implementing a waitlist system but hopefully they continue to innovate on that front. Huge numbers of people don’t even run races they sign up for 6 months in advance. Think about flight cancellations etc and his efficiently these things can move from hand to hand and I hope we reach a point where waitlists/transferring/deferrals mean that a lot of people get in later, so they’re actually near capacity (with people who want to/should run)

Several big races, including world majors, require you to sign up nearly a year in advance and then don't allow you to transfer your bib if life intervenes. This is definitely another way to improve the situation on the margins.

(Let people transfer bibs)

The whole industry is like anything else, their goal is to make money. So all the Majors are rolling in dough at the moment with people chasing time qualifiers, 6 Stars, whatever. There are plenty of wealthy enough people that will pay the entry fee and associated costs of a running a Major, so they have no incentive to make it harder to get in and thereby reduce the number of potential applicants. The increase in applicants is good for business, even if it isn't good for your average sub-elite marathon runner. The system as is works great for the Majors. Even your 2nd tier races like Grandma's, CIM, and the fast European non-majors are selling out early. There's a lot of value in chasing glory or the ultimate experience. Marketing, marketing, marketing. Heck, even myself would rather run NYC than one of my local marathons.

I ran a "downhill" half (Mesa) and a loop half on a flat course about 90 days apart. Both were in 40-50 degree weather with light winds. I ran 30 secs faster on the flat course. Training and basic fitness were about the same for both. I ended up using the flat course performance as my NYC qualifier.

To me a downhill half or marathon course is at best an insurance policy against 2nd half blowups but even that can backfire depending on your preparation for sustained downhill running. I'd like to see a statistical analysis comparing Revel times to "regular" courses. I imagine the differences aren't as big as you imagine. Starting off a race at 8000-5000 feet definitely has to be taken into account when figuring out the net benefit.

one of my biggest questions is how far under the cap races are due to no-shows.

If the races are significantly under their caps...then a waitlist and/or transfers could be helpful.

But it's possible the race are only a couple hundred under their caps. Then waitlists and transfers wouldn't get any more people onto the start line.

findmymarathon.com

Best Boston Marathon Qualifiers 2024

Best marathons to qualify for the Boston Marathon. View the percentage and number of Boston qualifiers for all certified marathons in 2024.

Link:findmymarathon.com/bestbostonmarathonq...

well, your experience is the exception rather than the rule, because Mesa is so far one of the top BQ % races in 2024. Here's 2023, a sampling near the top:

Oak Ridge to Kingston - 50% BQ

Hawaii Bird Conservation Marathon - 49%

Bound for Boston Marathon - 46%

Light at the end of the Tunnel - 41%

REVEL Big Bear - 40%

REVEL Mt. Charleston 36.7%

Numbers don't lie. Routinely I see people who run incredible 5-10+ minute "PRs" on these downhill courses (some with very gentle declines to minimize quad blowup risk), then jog it in after several lackluster performances on legitimate courses, usually citing various excuses rather than acknowledging the obivous. There is definitely a subset of runners for whom downhill courses don't work due to weak quads, biomechanics, who knows. But for the overwhelming majority, as evidenced by these massively inflated BQ percentages, it is gravity-assisted and absurd to claim as a legitimate PR.

Don't hate the player, hate the game, I know. They're technically legal. That's why I'm focusing my ire on the BAA. Eliminate this crap for the sake of the sport.

I have run both the HM and the marathon in Mesa in recent years and unless they have changed the course, the half is not insanely downhill.

The HM was the second half of the marathon and only dropped about 200 feet. The first half of the Mesa Marathon dropped about 800 feet. So the marathon is definitely an aided course, dropping 1000 feet from start to finish.

Some of these Revel marathons drop 4000 feet, or 2000 per half. That is 10 times the drop of the Mesa HM. I don't think this is a very good comparison.

there is definitely a continuum. is CIM a "cheater" course? no, the downhill is mild and counterbalanced by the rolling hills in the first half. is mesa? i don't know, 1000 feet of net downhill is a lot, maybe. are the REVEL races and 2000+ ft drop tunnel races not in the spirit of the sport? absolutely. i think a good rule of thumb that BAA could impose is the same as the OTQ eligibility in terms of a certain allowable decline (no greater than 3.25 meters/km if google is correct)

The quality of the competition and race organization is also what makes CIM a fast course. Always some people to run with at most paces. When I ran the Valencia Half, there was literally just a long line of people pulling me along to sub-1:15 pace. I didn't have to jump from pack to pack and get caught in no man's land until the last few kilometers. Got 400th place when I am getting top 150 in pretty much any US race with a similar time. Race depth makes a difference.

I know a guy who claims their 2:30x or 2:29 PR from a Revel race. I thought they were only for hobby joggers who needed to get into Boston but apparently AG grinders are looking for a semi-legal doping that flat courses with super shoes just doesn't fill.

I don't think anyone who has a downhill PR is legit no matter what positive views I say to their face.

I know this as my 5k PR is 16:32 but my downhill PR is 15:51, which I don't claim as a real one just did for shiuts n giggles.

These races should not be allowed in any qualification standards.

I hate the players and the game.

People who claim "oh the quad strain means its just as hard as regular race" are twice as evil in my opinion. At least cheat with flair. Don't try to justify it in any way.

the weak quads is just further proof of their lack of training which if they did any they wouldn't need massive handicaps.

In some sense it makes sense to prioritize NYRR results and keep a local element to the race. That said, the inter-NYRR qualification times are stupidly easy. I think they should keep the NYRR race priority, but make the qualification times a good bit harder.

I always qualify via a NYRR race and I would probably be negatively impacted by this change, but it makes sense. Im always surprised that my fairly pedestrian result qualifies me.