Great Idea. It makes it hard to complain about not getting in. The only excuse left is not being fast enough, which ultimately is the idea of Boston.
Great Idea. It makes it hard to complain about not getting in. The only excuse left is not being fast enough, which ultimately is the idea of Boston.
Myrtle Beach is in mid-feb. actually this weekend. I'm sure registration will skyrocket in the next few years.
d2xccoach wrote:
To my eyes it looks like BAA did a decent job with the changes. They raised the bar, which is a good thing, but not too much which keeps the bulk of runners in the game. They also put it somewhat on runners to run their best time in order to be able to get in earlier. I'm going to predict that we see a lot less times within 1-2 minutes of the qualifying standards. In the past I suspect runners, in some cases, did just enough to get the standard. Under the new policy you'll need to significantly exceed the standard to get yourself into one of the earlier registration pools.
For the 2012 marathon, the September 12-23, 2011 registration dates put the fall 2011 marathons in a bad place (i.e. on the outside) but this is really only a 1 year issue because for 2013 runners will be able to use their fall 2011 results to qualify.
I like that they included a provision for 10+ year Boston finishers. As long as those runners hit the standard they can register starting on trhe first day it opens. They say there are only about 500 in that group.
Would have liked to see them tighten up the women's standards a little but that was a no-win situation for them. If they had, you'd have heard charges of sexism from certain parties. If I'm BAA I'm probably saying to myself, leave that one alone.
I agree that it will be challenging for the BAA to verify the "20 minutes under the standard" in just 2 days before the "10 minutes under the standard" kicks in. There may not be that many entrants (relatively) at the "20 minutes under" point, but at "10 minutes under" I bet you have a lot of entrants. And at "5 minutes under" you will have a ton of the field. BAA only gave themselves a 3 day window to deal with that processing before regular entry opens. Good luck to them!
This is the most logical thing I have read on LetsRun in probably 6 months. Thanks D2XCoach. Your first paragraph is EXACTLY what I have stated for the last 3 or 4 years.
"For a female under 35 to match the qualifying standard that is set for men they should be running a 3:22."
That sounds very fair and comparable to the men's 3:05.
The current 3:40 is not much of a challenge (compared to the men).
I think if this demographic does grow at Boston, they will toughen that standard as well.
It should be a challenge!
I'm shocked that Boston came up with such a rational solution.
Good job.
Another wrinkle they could add would be something like Chicago's Top 100 program - don't know if Chicago still has that - where if, for men, you run a sub 2:30 or a sub 1:11 half you can register two months prior to the race. Set a comparable standard for women. Maybe tweak if for masters competition (or not). Just saying. Lots of faster folks aren't thrilled about signing up for a race 7 months in advance when you have no idea how you are going to be conditioning/injury wise. Wouldn't take up many places and would further bolster the front of the field.
But yeah, Boston did a good job overall with this fix.
I don't like the absolute time offsets. Knocking off 20 minutes from a 3:10 time is not the same as taking 20 off 3:40. A graded scale would have been better; something more along the lines of 12 minutes below 3:10 gets you into the first registration window or 20 minutes below 3:40.
I am a little bit confused, will a 3:03:57 get me a slightly earlier registration date for 2012? (18-35 group)? or does it need to be sub 3:00?
samblackbones wrote:
I am a little bit confused, will a 3:03:57 get me a slightly earlier registration date for 2012? (18-35 group)? or does it need to be sub 3:00?
You can register Sept 16th. 3:10 is the qualifying. Your time is more than 5mins faster but not 10min faster. Therefore you get to register on the 16th if it is not filled up.
I still think that it will sell out quickly, There are alot of people who beat the BQ-10 from the slower/older requirements. I know a lot of people who needed at 3:30 or 3:40 and got that with time to spare, so I don't think this race will be big group of sub 3:00 runners.
I got the time by 5 minutes, but really need to hit that 10 minute mark to make sure I am in. However, it may be too late to get the training in for a Spring marathon and the most fall marathons are after Boston registration closes.
I wish they would have announced this earlier in the year. If it was early January, a fast April or May marathon would be doable, now, it will be tough
Jogger to be wrote:
[quote]samblackbones wrote:
I am a little bit confused, will a 3:03:57 get me a slightly earlier registration date for 2012? (18-35 group)? or does it need to be sub 3:00?[quote]
You can register Sept 16th. 3:10 is the qualifying. Your time is more than 5mins faster but not 10min faster. Therefore you get to register on the 16th if it is not filled up.
And you'll be last to register for 2013.
If you think the women have an advantage, check out the men 45-49. I don't have any intentions of running Boston (or any other marathon) but 3:30 is a very easy time. From 44 to 45 you get an extra 10 minutes. If you wanted to qualify as a master, 45 would be the easiest age.
Yes, I'm 45 and I think they should eliminate this 10 minute jump and make it 5, maybe give 50 yr olds the 10 there. I'm just a bit bummed that I was sick on race day missed the BQ -20 by 2:29!
i just turned 46 wrote:
If you think the women have an advantage, check out the men 45-49. I don't have any intentions of running Boston (or any other marathon) but 3:30 is a very easy time. From 44 to 45 you get an extra 10 minutes. If you wanted to qualify as a master, 45 would be the easiest age.
This is a sound move in the right direction. It will be very interesting to see when it fills up in September.
If it fills in the <10 min window they should lower the standard by 10 minutes. Ideally we could get back to a standard where, if you ran the qualifying time you can run Boston. It is much more enjoyable to cross a finish line and BQ (against an approriately tough standard) and say I'm going to Boston! (vs if it doesn't fill up by the -10, -5 min window....)
kesako wrote:
wasn't there a discussion about comparing times for females and older athletes vs. younger men?
those women times are ridiculous honestly (yes I'm a guy), but a 3:40 marathon for a 25 y.o woman is not equivalent to a 3:10 marathon for a 25 y.o guy. Seriously.
It's only ridiculous because you haven't been able to qualify, jackass.
Another wrote:
What I like about this is that people can't complain about not getting into Boston anymore. Basically if you didn't get into Boston you didn't run fast enough. Which is what Boston is about....
It's a tiered A, B, C, D system. Interesting that in 2010, a 2:54 got you into 1st corral, but wouldn't be BQ-20...
this.
agegrade wrote:
This still doesn't address the age grade discrepancy between males and females under age 40. With the new standards, the slowest qualifying time for a 34 year old female is age graded at 63.7% and for a 34 year old male at 67.5%. The same is true for the 35-39 age category. After 40 it evens out. For a female under 35 to match the qualifying standard that is set for men they should be running a 3:22. Considering the new rolling admission this gives a HUGE advantage to this age group, which is also the fastest growing demographic in the running community.
You obviously didn't get an A in math. The equivalent under 35 female time is more in the range of 3:27-3:30.
You're just another bitter guy who can't meet the 3:10 qualifying time.
Another wrote:
I like this. And seeing that my BQ time for 2012 is already 26+ faster than the qualifying time I should have no problem registering....
I like it too. With a 50 minute cushion, good to go. Age has its advantages.
What I like is that it makes the race more competitive while keeping it a reasonable goal for older runners to qualify as many make it their lifelong goal. It does get relatively easier to qualify as you get older. And for me I have broken 3 hours 16 times but never as a masters runner. I am 43 and running Boston this Spring. Now I have an incredible incentive to break 3 as it pretty much guarantees me a spot in next year's race.
Midwest runner chick wrote:
"For a female under 35 to match the qualifying standard that is set for men they should be running a 3:22."
That sounds very fair and comparable to the men's 3:05.
The current 3:40 is not much of a challenge (compared to the men).
I think if this demographic does grow at Boston, they will toughen that standard as well.
It should be a challenge!
This is just a guess but I think the reason that they women's standards are what they are is that the BAA thinks it's more important to have a somewhat more even division of the genders in participation, rather than trying to equate men's and women's performances.
I can't find the stats now but I think that men still outnumber women by a significant amount at Boston.
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away