"The BQ singlet is for Boston qualifiers only – hobbyjoggers can’t even purchase them."

errr..No wrote:

I hear this old tired argument trotted out every time. newsflash...this isn't 1973 and the Boston Marathon is no longer struggling for respect. Those towns aren't going to be the ones who kill the famed Boston Marathon over a few charity entries.

Beside BAA could throw a few buck their way.

As a long-time Natick resident I can tell you this: there will NEVER be another Boston Marathon without the inclusion of charity participants. And BTW, I fully concur with your words - "this isn't 1973".

So that they could distinguish themselves from charity runners.

If BAA decides to create separate official shirts (different colors and designs) for qualifiers and charity runners (as well as other non-qualifying participants), there will be no demand for this.

They should also create separate finishers medals and bumper stickers. After all, wouldn't charity runners want to be recognized for their charity contribution?

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

So that they could distinguish themselves from charity runners.

What are they afraid of?

I don't agree with "earning" the right to buy a $70 singlet. I mean, I've found official Boston Marathon jackets at Ross for $25. But who knows. I'm not in Tracksmith's very specific target market.

"What kind of a narcissistic stroke would purchase such a thing?"

This guy:

http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/phlog/archive/2011/07/29/meet-the-mayor-reggie-lewis-track-amp-athletic-center.aspx

Steelernation wrote:

Running in the Boston Marathon in the 80's and 90's meant something. But, as in many other things in this world, we have to let others who didn't actually qualify, enjoy the same experience. It has made the Boston Marathon into just another Marathon. Let me be the race director. No more charity raising runners. Qualifying standards only.

It's all about the $$$

This incessant obsession with growth is absurd.

I blame Mary Wittenberg!

gets weelernation wrote:

Running in the Boston Marathon in the 80's and 90's meant something. But, as in many other things in this world, we have to let others who didn't actually qualify, enjoy the same experience. It has made the Boston Marathon into just another Marathon. Let me be the race director. No more charity raising runners. Qualifying standards only.

Boston will never be just another marathon.

Hobbyjoggers why all the hate who cares as long as there not infront of you.

Just don't mention tracksmith in the thread, it will immediately get deleted. Why can't we all just have a good laugh about this review?

Is the tracksmith brand really going to be that threatened by some guy discussing how tracksmith shorts make wearing women's underwear necessary? The quote:

The shorts don’t have a liner. I most often ran in them with a pair of women’s travel underwear underneath; I thought of this as a Smith College/Harvard mixer.

Link to the undies, definitely for women?

I really enjoyed Scott Douglas's review. Gave it a good review, but couldn't help himself throw in a few digs.

As others have said, it is a niche product, no one is holding a gun to your head to buy their offerings.

Its good to know there is a market for their items.

BTW, the parody site Scott mentions is spot on!

I enjoyed it too, couldn't stop laughing. I agree that the parody site is also hilarious.

Some mindless, albeit predictable, responses. Some people assume I was placing myself the level of a hobbyjogger by pointing out how easy it really is to qualify for Boston -- not a given for everyone, but clearly within any useful definition of hobbyjogging. Others interpreted my post as sour grapes -- a backhanded means of expressing frustration over not actually being able to qualify for Boston myself. Still others assumed that I was denigrating hobbyjoggers just for being what they are (slow).

These are all the posts of hopeless idiots. It's easy to see that all I was doing is pointing out that the Brosjo don't seem to have a handle on what constitutes a hobbyjogger. While there's no universal definition, someone who just squeaks into the Boston Marathon can accurately and undeniably be described as one.

That said, the guy who pointed out that my 36-handicap analogy is flawed made a very good point. I'll try a different one: In tournament play, the best PGA golfers regularly smash drives a little over 300 yards, correct? So some weekend warrior who tops out at a little over 200 yards would be labeled utterly unremarkable, as would a golfer who tends to three-putt rather than two-putt. Simple enough, right?

I evidently offended some people who are extremely proud of having given it their all to run 7:00 pace for a marathon and just sneak into Boston under the wire. If so, please don't be so sensitive. There are far worse identities to carry than "hobbyjogger." I consider myself a hobbyjogger even though I'm sure that if I cared to I could qualify for Boston (which I have no interest in running) with many, many minutes to spare.

Compensatory Appendage wrote:

I'm sure that if I cared to I could qualify for Boston (which I have no interest in running) with many, many minutes to spare.

I just pissed my pissed pants over that inane assertion. You go, bro. Bwahahahaaaaaa.....

Compensatory Appendage wrote:

Still others assumed that I was denigrating hobbyjoggers just for being what they are (slow).

It's easy to see that all I was doing is pointing out that the Brosjo don't seem to have a handle on what constitutes a hobbyjogger. While there's no universal definition, someone who just squeaks into the Boston Marathon can accurately and undeniably be described as one.

There are far worse identities to carry than "hobbyjogger." I consider myself a hobbyjogger even though I'm sure that if I cared to I could qualify for Boston (which I have no interest in running) with many, many minutes to spare.

1) "hobbyjogger" is generally used on this site as a nebulous pejorative. if an objective definition was ever proposed (by reference, for example, to the age-graded performance level calculators such as the compuscore one:

), it was likely contradicted by another objective definition on a different thread.

Here are three different - objective - ways I propose we could define "hobbyjogger": (i) by some TBD age-graded score, (ii) by whether one ran for their college team, or (iii) by miles per week run over some extended time period (longer than one reasonable training cycle). It seems (i) is the best. If so, what should that score be?

2) Anyone who would actually wear a BQ singlet is shameless, no matter how personally difficult and gratifying was the accomplishment.

Dude, if you think 3:05 isn't very impressive for Joe Schmoe, you're totally out of touch. Do you have any friends who aren't talented runners? 7:00 pace is fast for most folks, and IMO hobbyjogging is like 3:30+ for men.

My proposal for hobbyjogger cutoff: WR + 23.6%

9.58 --> 11.84

19.19 --> 23.72

43.18 --> 53.37

1:40.91 --> 2:04.72

3:43.13 --> 4:35.78

12:37 --> 15:36

26:17 --> 32:29

58:23 --> 1:12:10

2:02:57 --> 2:31:58

my adrenals hurt wrote:

My proposal for hobbyjogger cutoff: WR + 23.6%

9.58 --> 11.84

19.19 --> 23.72

43.18 --> 53.37

1:40.91 --> 2:04.72

3:43.13 --> 4:35.78

12:37 --> 15:36

26:17 --> 32:29

58:23 --> 1:12:10

2:02:57 --> 2:31:58

Ha, only hobbyjoggers care about Mile PRs!

3:26.00 --> 4:14.62

What If one of my PRs was better than 1.236 x WR when I set it, but a subsequent lowing of the WR made it move to the other side...am I grandfathered in as a non-hobbyjogger?

Compensatory Appendage wrote:We don't think of golfers with a 36 handicap as anything better than duffers or hackers, do we?

About 10% of marathon finishers achieve BQ. That's about the same ratio as golfers with 5 or lower handicap.

my adrenals hurt wrote:

My proposal for hobbyjogger cutoff: WR + 23.6%

9.58 --> 11.84

19.19 --> 23.72

43.18 --> 53.37

1:40.91 --> 2:04.72

3:43.13 --> 4:35.78

12:37 --> 15:36

26:17 --> 32:29

58:23 --> 1:12:10

2:02:57 --> 2:31:58

Cut the crap. Unless someone is among the very select group of people that makes a living at distance running, then it's a freaking hobby. Just like bowling, golf, or stamp collecting.

my adrenals hurt wrote:

My proposal for hobbyjogger cutoff: WR + 23.6%

9.58 --> 11.84

19.19 --> 23.72

43.18 --> 53.37

1:40.91 --> 2:04.72

3:43.13 --> 4:35.78

12:37 --> 15:36

26:17 --> 32:29

58:23 --> 1:12:10

2:02:57 --> 2:31:58

Why is it 23.7% instead of 20% or 25%? Is it because you barely achieved one of them?

My proposal for cut-off.

2:15:00 for marathon (A standard).

If you are slower than any of this, you are probably jogging as your hobby.