Here is an idea: instead of doing a bq time and arbitrary -2 min cut off, why not accept courses with no net drop more than boston? so if a course had more than 400' drop, it doesnt count. This will lessen the amount of entries so if you do get a BQ time, no worry about getting in.
why wont BAA do this?
The BQ exists this day and age to generate money. Whether it's charity runners who can't actually get a BQ or to use as incentive by other Marathons to drum up more participants and buy more gear chasing that BQ. I would argue that they want more and not less qualifiers.
boston_solution wrote:
Here is an idea: instead of doing a bq time and arbitrary -2 min cut off, why not accept courses with no net drop more than boston? so if a course had more than 400' drop, it doesnt count. This will lessen the amount of entries so if you do get a BQ time, no worry about getting in.
why wont BAA do this?
1) there's nothing arbitrary about the cut-off
2) that would just mean people do it at different marathons if they are trying to qualify. Duh...
boston_solution wrote:
Here is an idea: instead of doing a bq time and arbitrary -2 min cut off, why not accept courses with no net drop more than boston? so if a course had more than 400' drop, it doesnt count. This will lessen the amount of entries so if you do get a BQ time, no worry about getting in.
why wont BAA do this?
The question is why should they do this?
At the end of the day BAA needs to make money. The money from the person running that downhill race is just as good as the money from someone running a flat course.
Also, then it becomes an issue of BAA having to check the course profile of every marathon out there. My guess is they decided that it is not worth the staff time or hassle to do it. Another guess might be why piss of fellow race directors?
That's just plain stupid and impractical. Do you suggest we do a grand meta-analysis of courses to handicap the results for BQ entry too?
Pick a favorable certified course and run. Some years you may squeak in with a marginal BQ. Sometimes there will be more competition.
Run often, mostly slow, sometimes fast. Race hard
This doesn't guarantee the outcome you claim it does. This is no solution (and my stance is that there is no problem).
Somebody's quads are weak and can't run downhills well. And is a whiner.
boston_solution wrote:
Here is an idea: instead of doing a bq time and arbitrary -2 min cut off, why not accept courses with no net drop more than boston? so if a course had more than 400' drop, it doesnt count. This will lessen the amount of entries so if you do get a BQ time, no worry about getting in.
why wont BAA do this?
Why would they? You're trying to solve a problem that goes not exist.
Downhill bomber wrote:
Somebody's quads are weak and can't run downhills well. And is a whiner.
Bingo. OP must be one of those sad squeaker guys that can't wait another year because bla bla bla
i got in on legit courses. i guess the problem is more with USATF who allows these silly courses in ?
given the scenario:
you and buddy are 3:04 shape....
you do 3:04 on flat course, he does 2:56 at st george. Not only does he get in a day ahead, but you are biting nails wondering if you made the cut off, which you likely wont.
he gets the glory, women, and boston booze...
yes it looks like BAA is selling out and tarnishing the legacy of this race, which WAS a show case for best amature/pro runners now just a bragging show for those who can afford the jacket. kind of same thing with triathlon and the Ironman brand.
200th place at St. George was a 3:06. Somehow I don't think that the number of BQ qualifiers from St. George (who would not be able to qualify on some other course) is really that large. Sure, there are probably a few dozen marginal runners who might use St. George to squeak out a qualifier. I don't think this is much of an issue, especially in light of thousands of charity runners.
somebloke wrote:
Downhill bomber wrote:Somebody's quads are weak and can't run downhills well. And is a whiner.
Bingo. OP must be one of those sad squeaker guys that can't wait another year because bla bla bla
How's it going, man. Did you ever sue that man who evicted you from your house?
boston_solution wrote:
you and buddy are 3:04 shape....
Are we discussing this seriously? Do you also think a 3:04 shape is hard to attain?
boston_solution wrote:
you do 3:04 on flat course, he does 2:56 at st george. Not only does he get in a day ahead, but you are biting nails wondering if you made the cut off, which you likely wont.
he gets the glory, women, and boston booze...
This is of course very true for all Boston runners. Life is good.
How about Boston become a professional marathon. No qualifying times, invite only, how about that...
letsracer wrote:
How about Boston become a professional marathon. No qualifying times, invite only, how about that...
I am ok with that. I will be left with about 1000 other options.
somebloke wrote:
letsracer wrote:How about Boston become a professional marathon. No qualifying times, invite only, how about that...
I am ok with that. I will be left with about 1000 other options.
You've never qualified for Boston, so it is not like you'd be losing anything. :)
Alternatively, whiners can run faster instead of "worrying" about getting in. Open men used to need a sub-2:50, and then later sub-3:00 to get in. And somehow, miraculously, we met the standard.