Boston Marathon Debate

It's the hobbyjogger Olympics, nobody here should give a crap.

Why does it have to be an 'or' situation?

For the record I happened to get in - at 2:00 p.m. I tried once and within 5 minutes was entered.

I'm 40+ and can break my standard by 28 minutes. I think the standards are too easy.

What bugs me is the guy from Minnesota who has run Boston 20 years in a row and didn't get in. There MUST be something that can be done for people in this situation. Assuming his time still qualifies him they should make exceptions for longtime competitors(of course at what number, 10 years? 15? 20? is debatable).

My two cents.

I think they need to both raise the standards (level of competition) and limit the non-qualifiers

Here is the big question.

Why were the standards harder in the 80's than now?

I was fortunate to meet the qualifying in my age group by 30+ minutes, and navigate the website that Monday afternoon to register.

I do think the qualifying standards should be tightened. If we're truly in the midst of the second running boom than standards should reflect that. Qualifying times were faster in the 1980s and should be now as well. I feel bad for those would be excluded but having to run 7:15 pace as a 30 year old man is just not that challenging for such a fabled event.

I hope they lower the standards across the board by 5 minutes and eliminate the 35-39 age group and put all under 40's into the open division.

If they keep the same standards, they should open registration first for those whose BQ is 15+ minutes better than the standard. When that period ends, those 10+ minutes better than the standard can enter. Then 5+ minutes better and finally open up the free for all. It would stop the affect of faster runners being shut-out by faster clickers. Furthermore, it would inspire people to improve their times to avoid that registration crush. You could also allow "streakers" into the early registration if they've run at least 10 consecutive or whatever.

When the BAA calls me asking for my advice, this is what I'll tell them.

They should lower the qualifying standard by so much that all the whiners who blame charity runners for their inability to register on time are no longer able to qualify.

they should go to the ORIGINAL standard.

4 hours for everyone.

Mr. Ridiculous Pants wrote:

What bugs me is the guy from Minnesota who has run Boston 20 years in a row and didn't get in. There MUST be something that can be done for people in this situation.

I have zero sympathy for him. People like this guy are part of the problem. I only feel for Boston area runners who got shut-out of registering with a qualifier and are stuck either not running and finding a different marathon outside their area or having to jump on some charity gravytrain. He's run it twenty effing times, it's a race with highly limited entry slots so it's beyond time that he started giving someone else that spot.

Picayune wrote:

It's the hobbyjogger Olympics, nobody here should give a crap.

30 years ago, the Olympics were the hobby jogger Olympics

so?

It's the BAA's race. They can do whatever they want with it. Just meet the qualifying standard and register. If they raise the standard, train harder. If it looks to sell out quickly, register ASAP. It's pretty simple.

Picayune wrote:

It's the hobbyjogger Olympics, nobody here should give a crap.

Some slower people may treat it that way but up front it is still a major marathon with some of the fastest mofos in the world running it.

If people feel so strongly about a charity, they should simply raise money for the charity. There is no need to weave the fund raising in with a "competitive" event.

I want to raise money to fight cancer. Would Major League Baseball let me in the playoffs (replacing a division winner) if I formed a team with 8 other guys and raised a few bills for the cause? No. Why? Because the concept is simply stupid!

Why doesn't the BAA accept the same logic in their event to keep it from becoming a carnival?

A big difference between a major league baseball game and the marathon is that the baseball game is played in a private park but a marathon is run on public roads. The uninvolved public has to get something from their displacement from the roads. That's the problem. The charity benefit softens the use of public property for even a non-profit corporation.

Tom

Derderian wrote:

The uninvolved public has to get something from their displacement from the roads. That's the problem. The charity benefit softens the use of public property for even a non-profit corporation.

Tom

What does the uninvolved public "get" from their displacement during a Gay Rights Rally or KKK Rally or some other road closing? Road closings for demonstrations/parades happen all the time and what does the "uninvolved public" get? Why is a marathon any different. F! the charities, that's not the purpose of a marathon.

Mick Lovin wrote:

Here is the big question.

Why were the standards harder in the 80's than now?

__________________________

$$$$$$$$$$MONEY$$$$$$

They should tighten the womens standards by five - ten minutes and give women the credit they deserve - A 3:10 for a man is more competitive than a 3:40 for a woman.

Buying your way in with a more expensive entry despite not qualifying - Get rid of it. You qualify or you don't.

Charity runners are more noble than simply running for your own sake, but quit making exceptions as there are numerous other races that can be run without having to qualify. Boston, please quit diluting this competitive event. Charity runners should be welcomed and embraced - If they qualify. If you sign up too late, you're out. Having signups begin in January makes sense.