Would the race remain as popular or would it be diminished? Would the effect reverberate beyond Massachusetts as hobby runners would no longer have a "big goal" to pursue?
Would the race remain as popular or would it be diminished? Would the effect reverberate beyond Massachusetts as hobby runners would no longer have a "big goal" to pursue?
Since you have not qualified, you are a "hobby runner" so just ask yourself.
One could argue that Boston took away the qualifying standard a long time ago.
Three ideas
1. Hold the marathon twice a year. One race with stricter qualifying times and the other with no qualifying times.
2. Go to an open enrollment with more open waves. Use qualifying times to set the first couple of waves but add just add extra waves. Charge more for the unqualified entrants to offset the increased cost of keeping the streets closed for the extra time.
3. Keep it the same. Seems to be working fine.
If they did that, I would never go back there. However, the race would become MUCH more popular, because all of the slower runners would want to do it, and remember, the average marathoner is in the 4:30-4:45 range and there are A LOT OF THEM.
AlmostBQ wrote:
Would the race remain as popular or would it be diminished? Would the effect reverberate beyond Massachusetts as hobby runners would no longer have a "big goal" to pursue?
It would overflow. It wouldn't be as big as New York, but it would still be a destination and it would fill up whatever reasonable sized field they allowed.
Jeffster!!! wrote:
Three ideas
1. Hold the marathon twice a year. One race with stricter qualifying times and the other with no qualifying times.
2. Go to an open enrollment with more open waves. Use qualifying times to set the first couple of waves but add just add extra waves.
A1 - They already do this.
http://www.jimmyfundwalk.org/htmlcontent.asp?cid=98617A2 - The 8 contiguous towns won't sign off on that.
Huh? wrote:
Since you have not qualified, you are a "hobby runner" so just ask yourself.
You're right. I haven't qualified.
I'm just wondering whether if there wasn't the qualifying time "challenge" many people wouldn't give Boston any more thought than say Spokane or Minneapolis.
Yonkers is the second oldest marathon in the country- it draws maybe a few hundred or so runners to its event.
Peace Out wrote:
If they did that, I would never go back there. However, the race would become MUCH more popular, because all of the slower runners would want to do it, and remember, the average marathoner is in the 4:30-4:45 range and there are A LOT OF THEM.
I wonder whether it might have the effect of diminishing overall participation in marathons. If the Boston qualifying aspect didn't exist, would runners in decent condition perhaps just do one or two marathons in decent time, then shift to shorter distances?
AlmostBQ wrote:
I'm just wondering whether if there wasn't the qualifying time "challenge" many people wouldn't give Boston any more thought than say Spokane or Minneapolis.
In the immediate years, it would fill up quickly and remain immensely popular from a repressed desire from almost-BQers (nothing wrong with that) or used-to-BQers that wanted to go back, or even people that might BQ but didn't run a qualifying race the previous year.
Initially, Boston would sell out within a day. Fact.
Consider that Chicago sells out within 6.
After that, because of the history, event support, course, elite runners expo/schwag/merchandise/speakers, Patriot's Day weekend and television, it will still remain immensely popular. Not just Bostonians, but New Yorkers might make a long weekend out of it.
Bigger than that: tour companies would sell packages to out-of-town marathon groups. These would sell quickly.
But, because of the fact that it sold out within a day the first few years when it was hypothetically open to all, the impression of scarcity would cause people to register quickly in subsequent years.
--
Anyway, keep working at the BQ. It's still worth it!
Bone up on your history and you'll see Boston had no qualifying times for most of its history.
Think Bay to Breakers
It didn't need it because the number of people who were willing to flop around on the course for hours and hours was pretty darn low. People used to understand that if you're going to run a marathon you should be ready for it.
Huh? wrote:
Bone up on your history and you'll see Boston had no qualifying times for most of its history.
I'm quite familiar with the history - at first it was attesting that you could finish the race under 4 hours (1970), then it became having actually finished a prior marathon under 4 hours. Then in the 1980s the times went down to 2:50 open men, 3:10 masters and such.
I'm just wondering whether now, in light of so many other marathons now being available, whether Boston w/o any qualifying time would find itself diminishing in popularity after a few years, as the course is not particularly remarkable and it's expensive to go to etc.
AlmostBQ wrote:
I'm just wondering whether now, in light of so many other marathons now being available, whether Boston w/o any qualifying time would find itself diminishing in popularity after a few years, as the course is not particularly remarkable and it's expensive to go to etc.
Chicago is also not particularly remarkable, and expensive. Yet twice the field size of Boston sold out in 6 days, compared to taking a few weeks the year before.
Marine Corps Marathon, with a field size 5k bigger than Boston, sold out in less than 3 hours.
Marathon running (and running multiple marathons in a lifetime or year) is still increasing in popularity.
An unqualified Boston would sell out within hours, even 5-10 years later. Fact.
Huh? wrote:
Bone up on your history and you'll see Boston had no qualifying times for most of its history.
Before formal time standards were imposed 42 years ago, you still had to prove to Jock Semple that you were deserving of a number.
AlmostBQ wrote:
I'm quite familiar with the history - at first it was attesting that you could finish the race under 4 hours (1970), then it became having actually finished a prior marathon under 4 hours. Then in the 1980s the times went down to 2:50 open men, 3:10 masters and such.
I'm just wondering whether now, in light of so many other marathons now being available, whether Boston w/o any qualifying time would find itself diminishing in popularity after a few years, as the course is not particularly remarkable and it's expensive to go to etc.
You are not as familiar with the history as you think you are. Otherwise you would know that during the pre-qualifying years the race was still very popular with athletes and spectators. And the course is "not particularly remarkable"? Are you serious?
Pat Riots wrote:
An unqualified Boston would sell out within hours, even 5-10 years later. Fact.
At first I thought you were expressing a strongly held opinion, but then you pointed out how it is an unqualified truth. Thanks for doing so.
random a hole wrote:
Pat Riots wrote:An unqualified Boston would sell out within hours, even 5-10 years later. Fact.
At first I thought you were expressing a strongly held opinion, but then you pointed out how it is an unqualified truth. Thanks for doing so.
You got it! Use it sparingly, but use it correctly.
Pat Riots wrote:
Chicago is also not particularly remarkable, and expensive. Yet twice the field size of Boston sold out in 6 days, compared to taking a few weeks the year before.
Marine Corps Marathon, with a field size 5k bigger than Boston, sold out in less than 3 hours.
Marathon running (and running multiple marathons in a lifetime or year) is still increasing in popularity.
An unqualified Boston would sell out within hours, even 5-10 years later. Fact.
I have to wonder if Marine Corps sold out so fast because of the liberal deferment and/or transfer policy. Basically, you have a bunch of "hobby" joggers and first timers say "I'll sign up for this to cross it off my bucket list" knowing that if they don't feel like running it, they can move their registration to the next year. Basically, they don't train and come to the realization that its probably not such a good idea to do this.
I am sure it has something to do with why 30,000 slots sell out in 3 hours, yet the actual number of finishers every year is right around 21k or so. A normal road race (5k, 10k, half) will have about a 20% no show rate.