2016 Boston acceptance are out - This year you had to run 2:28 faster than the BQ time to actually get accepted

Repost.

Now is it enough to BQ, or do I actually have to run Boston to strike it of my bucket list?

kind of makes me regret being cheap and not signing up, as I was over 46 minutes under the qualifying time. it'd be nice if they charged under $100 like the great European races.

jjjjjj wrote:

kind of makes me regret being cheap and not signing up, as I was over 46 minutes under the qualifying time. it'd be nice if they charged under $100 like the great European races.

Ahhhhh .. The humble brag.

You are so awesome wrote:

jjjjjj wrote:

kind of makes me regret being cheap and not signing up, as I was over 46 minutes under the qualifying time. it'd be nice if they charged under $100 like the great European races.

Ahhhhh .. The humble brag.

LOL. Yeah, I don't know what about this news makes you regret signing up - but thanks for letting us know, jj!

148% of the WR instead of 150%, why is that so prestigious? At no other distance would that qualify for diddly squat. It's like running a 5:30 mile.

Another terrible thread about nothing.

Bad Wigins wrote:

148% of the WR instead of 150%, why is that so prestigious? At no other distance would that qualify for diddly squat. It's like running a 5:30 mile.

True, but qualifying for Boston is usually something attempted seriously by adult runners with no NCAA or HS xc/track background or by those who have that in their background but basically ate Cheetos for last 5-10 years and now want to get back into it [running]. A 5:30 mile is an outstanding time for an AVerage American starting running at age 25 to 50 and no high school xc/track or NCAA xc/track background.

A 5:30 mile is basically just a high school JV level performance (for a male), but it's outstanding for someone who did diddly squat for exercise most of their life and takes up running later in life as a sport.

Sir, you are correct at the age of 48 I can run 5:30 per mile. I have only been running for just over 2 years.

jjjjjj wrote:

kind of makes me regret being cheap and not signing up, as I was over 46 minutes under the qualifying time. it'd be nice if they charged under $100 like the great European races.

cool brah

Curious if anyone thinks it will drop back down to 2:50 like the early 80s?

I don't think it will.

http://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/participant-information/qualifying/history-of-qualifying-standards.aspx

I like the quote from 1970 "This is not a jogging race."

Never, that would reduce the field to 25% of its current size. These qualifying times are so soft, but it's in line with the demand. There is fierce competition to get in if you're within 3 minutes of the standard. I guess it creates buzz and anxiety, but it's a bit sad to see it so slow in general. However, anyone who's that much faster shouldn't care as they get placed up front at the start with the faster crowd. Even if you start in the back it just takes a couple of miles to get enough room to move up. It's a great race to PB as you just get pushed along. In NY you spend the first 10 miles dodging traffic, it's such a cluster.

This is not a jogging race wrote:

Curious if anyone thinks it will drop back down to 2:50 like the early 80s?

I don't think it will.

http://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/participant-information/qualifying/history-of-qualifying-standards.aspx

I like the quote from 1970 "This is not a jogging race."

Still too slow for Olympic Trials. Queue seven to ten sad face emojis.

The only thing the B.A.A needs to do at this point is change the qualifying standards so that they are more even across genders and ages.

It's pretty well understood that women have easier qualifying standards then the men, and that the older you get, the easier it gets.

The demand will make the race as prestigious or not as the market demands. If more people want to run it, then it will become harder to get accepted.

What about that post made you think humble?

I thought the old New York standards were more reasonable. Boston's should be tougher. New York raised them at some point to 2:45 for open and 2:50, I think, for master's, which seemed to me unreasonable in that it was cutting out a lot of runners training hard for the race (not me, of course) in order to get more lottery/charity/international joggers in. Fukuoka has some tough qualifying standards at maybe 2:42 for everyone and they have a broom wagon to sweep you up if you fall below that pace.

Trollminator wrote:

Never, that would reduce the field to 25% of its current size. These qualifying times are so soft, but it's in line with the demand. There is fierce competition to get in if you're within 3 minutes of the standard. I guess it creates buzz and anxiety, but it's a bit sad to see it so slow in general.

This is not a jogging race wrote:

Curious if anyone thinks it will drop back down to 2:50 like the early 80s?

I don't think it will.

http://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/participant-information/qualifying/history-of-qualifying-standards.aspx

I like the quote from 1970 "This is not a jogging race."

Running 2:50 nearly puts a runner in the first corral, roughly bib 1500 out of 30000. The race would not be 25% of current size, it would only be 5%

jjjjjj wrote:

I thought the old New York standards were more reasonable. Boston's should be tougher. New York raised them at some point to 2:45 for open and 2:50, I think, for master's, which seemed to me unreasonable in that it was cutting out a lot of runners training hard for the race (not me, of course) in order to get more lottery/charity/international joggers in. Fukuoka has some tough qualifying standards at maybe 2:42 for everyone and they have a broom wagon to sweep you up if you fall below that pace.

I think Fukuoka lowered their standard to 2:40 last year. Lake Biwa is even tougher at 2:30. Now those two are bucket list worthy....though for true LRCers those are hobby jogger times! My goal is to run both in the same calendar year (they're in December and April respectively) while looking relaxed....in trainers.

I keep hoping to making into Wave 1, Corral 1. I thought for sure my 2:45:52 would get it in 2014 but after the bombings that wasn't the case and I was in Corral 2 again.

Wonder what the cut off will be? I kind of doubt it with the increased interest and the fact that I only ran 2:47:49 this past year to qualify.