Changing is an option, but letting runners who ran a 3:46:05, 3:41:15, 3:11:32, 3:16:02 is wrong from the association's part. The race director should come clean about losing its prestige. Boston Marathon is a joke!
Changing is an option, but letting runners who ran a 3:46:05, 3:41:15, 3:11:32, 3:16:02 is wrong from the association's part. The race director should come clean about losing its prestige. Boston Marathon is a joke!
Link wrote:
To answer the point of the above poster, I don't think a new marathon with qualifying standards would last long. It wouldn't have Boston's hisotry.
The National Marathon/Half-Marathon in DC does have qualifying standards, and sold out last year.
Of course, the standards are much, much, much weaker than Boston -- they seem to be aimed towards screening out total beginners and/or registrants that don't have a reasonable shot of completing the course in under the time limit. Basically, if you've never raced a 10K or longer, you can't enter the marathon; if you've never raced at least a 5K, you can't enter the half.
I have to say, it seemed to work well last year, in that most people seemed to seed themselves honestly in the (voluntary) corrals -- there was a definite lack of completely inexperienced racers lining themselves up for times they couldn't run in their wildest dreams.
Standards are:
Qualify for the marathon:
Marathon - 5:00:00
Half-Marathon - 2:30:00
20k - 2:22:00
10 Miles - 1:50:00
15k - 1:46:00
12k - 1:18:00
10k - 1:05:00
Qualify for the half:
Half-Marathon - 2:30:00
20k - 2:22:00
10 Miles - 1:50:00
15k - 1:46:00
12k - 1:18:00
10k - 1:05:00
8k/5 miles - 52:00
4 miler - 41:00
5k - 31:00
The issue is not qualifying times. The issue with the Boston Marathon is that the race director accepts mediocre runners who missed the qualifying time by a few seconds.
There must be a better way to enforce the entrance!
lind wrote:
Changing is an option, but letting runners who ran a 3:46:05, 3:41:15, 3:11:32, 3:16:02 is wrong from the association's part. The race director should come clean about losing its prestige. Boston Marathon is a joke!
do they really do this?
when i read your earlier post ("it must be known that plenty of runners who missed the cut by several seconds still managed to gain entry") i thought you were ill informed and talking about the well-known 59-second buffer zone they provide (3:10:59 instead of 3:10:00).
are you saying that a male under 35 could run 3:11:32, write to the baa and beg, and then be allowed in as a qualified runner?
i've never heard this before. if it's true, i agree, it does make the boston marathon look like a joke. sorry for the misunderstanding.
lind stfu already. Get over it
The executive director of the BAA, Morse, is concerned about no-shows, but he does not exactly perceive the early sell-out as a problem for his organization.
Good business article on the topic, today, here:
Remember, the whole thing has become a medium sized business, and as happens in many businesses, the customer comes second.
Personally, I think the current set-up is a nursery for unkeepable promises, predisposed to fleecing the customer rather than sustaining the highest possible quality racing event. In this sense, the race has departed from its historical legacy.
Here's one idea for qualifying and registering for Boston:
2:30 and faster register October
2:45 and faster register November
3:00 and faster register December
3:15 and faster register January
Etc.
Obviously qualifying times and registration dates would be different than listed above, probably only one or two weeks in between speed groups would be better, and you\'d have to figure in age groups. It just makes sense though that a 2:45 runner would have a greater chance of getting in than a 3:10 runner.
not likely wrote:
As for the BAA they are kind of stuck between a bit of a rock and a hard place. They can drop the qualifier massively, to the point where there are only 30 or 40 thousand possible qualifiers out there and risk not filling up. They can drop it a sensible amount and actually have more people sign up and increase there problems.
If you really believe this to be true, then you must admit, by the intermediate value theorem, that there must be a qualifying time faster than your sensible decrease but slower than your massive decrease, at which they would have the same number of registrants as they do now. Since the time would have to be faster than it is now, the race would have more prestige, while still filling up in the same amount of time.
assuming continuity
An idea wrote:
Here's one idea for qualifying and registering for Boston:
2:30 and faster register October
2:45 and faster register November
3:00 and faster register December
3:15 and faster register January
Etc.
Obviously qualifying times and registration dates would be different than listed above, probably only one or two weeks in between speed groups would be better, and you'd have to figure in age groups. It just makes sense though that a 2:45 runner would have a greater chance of getting in than a 3:10 runner.
Why? Why should a 2:30 runner get to register before a 3:00 runner? The only problem with Boston filling up for a lot of people on LetsRun is not that it's hard to run the race, but that it's harder for faster, "more deserving" runners to run the race than slower, "less deserving" runners.
A lot of people, on other threads, have expressed the desire that there should be some intermediate standard, one between the ordinary qualifying time and the sort that gets you an elite bib. It's a ridiculous form of elitism. You sound like people that feel they don't need to wait in line because they happen to know somebody at the DMV or at the bank.
ming ding xiong wrote:
An idea wrote:Here's one idea for qualifying and registering for Boston:
2:30 and faster register October
2:45 and faster register November
3:00 and faster register December
3:15 and faster register January
Etc.
Obviously qualifying times and registration dates would be different than listed above, probably only one or two weeks in between speed groups would be better, and you'd have to figure in age groups. It just makes sense though that a 2:45 runner would have a greater chance of getting in than a 3:10 runner.
Why? Why should a 2:30 runner get to register before a 3:00 runner?
Because 2:30 is faster than 3:00. How is being better than someone at something a form of "elitism"? If you are faster than you are more deserving. The above idea is actually a really good one that makes a lot of sense.
Not too bad an idea.
To respond to some of the others, just factor in the age groups.
ie Open Male 2:40 Open until Sept 30
2:50 10/1 - 10/31
3:00 11/1 - 11/30
3:10 12/1 until full
Do the same with each age group and then at least there isn't an age penalty.
qt wrote: How is being better than someone at something a form of "elitism"?
A 2:30 runner is only faster than a 3:00 runner, he's not more deserving of entering a race.
If you are faster than you are more deserving.
Why? Would you like to be bumped from your next race because the race director found someone faster?
Why don't you guys just run Fukuoka? Their B standard is around 2:43, I think.
Cpt Ahab wrote:
While it's not boston's job to care about other marathons I can only imagine that late Fall and early winter races will suffer due to the early closing of Boston.
.
I doubt it. Look at any of these races, the percentage of those who would qual for Boston is pretty low. Of those that did run BQ times how many did so to actually be able to go run in Boston? I can't see this mattering much to those races
NYC has stronger qualifying times. But they let in the lottery, other exceptions, and lots of charity types as well.
I don't suppose there's anyway of suggesting this to the race association?
An idea wrote:
I don't suppose there's anyway of suggesting this to the race association?
That is a great idea. THe system would add to race excitement - picture having guys at the water cooler saying "OMG did you get in?" "Oh yeah, You are mad fast that's why you got to register already. I hope my time is fast enough to get me in before all the fast runners fill it up."
An idea wrote:
Here's one idea for qualifying and registering for Boston:
2:30 and faster register October
2:45 and faster register November
3:00 and faster register December
3:15 and faster register January
Etc.
Obviously qualifying times and registration dates would be different than listed above, probably only one or two weeks in between speed groups would be better, and you'd have to figure in age groups. It just makes sense though that a 2:45 runner would have a greater chance of getting in than a 3:10 runner.
This still doesn't solve the problem that a fast runner can't run a late qualifier and still get in.
Most people forget to realize that your qualifing time is good for 18 months. So if you ran a marathon in Late Sept 2009 or after, you can use the time for Boston 2011. Then you can be the first to register the day it opens and stop complaining.