Why is boston so popular

you need to troll harder boy

2/10. some people genuinely don't get it so the subject peaked my interest. But your execution in the narrative was seriously lacking and made it obvious. Come back tomorrow and try again

Doping works wrote:

2/10. some people genuinely don't get it so the subject peaked my interest. But your execution in the narrative was seriously lacking and made it obvious. Come back tomorrow and try again

Piqued*

Unless that was legitimately the most interesting thing you've ever heard. In that case, I feel sorry for you.

I'm genuinely curious. I don't understand why. Like half the threads posted on the site during October to April are about boston.

What other marathons do you think are better?

Jruns wrote:

I'm genuinely curious. I don't understand why. Like half the threads posted on the site during October to April are about boston.

I sometimes wonder myself. As an elite race, London is bigger, faster, and better but in the US nothing comes close to the hype of Boston. NYC is next but if it were measured in time, it would be 5-6 minutes behind Boston.

That said, Boston is mostly about the recreational runner.

It is big because it has been around for 120 years and as such, is one of the oldest races in the US. Bay to Breakers is up there too.

It is big because it's a marathon. People don't know or care much about any other distance other than the 4 minute mile.

It is big because it requires a qualifying time. The only marathon in the US to do so. No mind that it used to be much more difficult to get in. You still have to qualify, so that requires a modicum of commitment. to the average joe (runner or non-runner) completing a marathon is a big deal. Making a BQ is 5X bigger.

It is big because it the holy grail of the hobby marathoner.

It is bigger than ever because of the unfortunate tragedy of the Boston bombing. The only good thing to come out of that is that now the interest is greater, qualifying times are actually getting faster.

Real runners know that there are many bigger and better things, but they are in the minority outnumbered 50:1, maybe 100:1.

Letsbicker.com wrote:

It is big because it requires a qualifying time. The only marathon in the US to do so. No mind that it used to be much more difficult to get in. You still have to qualify, so that requires a modicum of commitment. to the average joe (runner or non-runner) completing a marathon is a big deal. Making a BQ is 5X bigger.

This is what its really all about. Forgetting the charity runners who make up a fraction of the runners, you have to qualify using a MARATHON not a half time or a 10k.

I understand that the times aren't too hard but calling a 3:00 marathoner a hobby jogger is harsh.

Jordan Hasay used a half time to qualify

I never bought I'd end up a marathoner, and even when I did eventually move on to running them, my first priority was my hometown marathon (NYC). Then when I wanted to run another, it was no question going to be Chicago because of the world class fast course. I had knocked out 2 of the 3 US world majors, and figured it would be nice to train through a Florida winter instead of summer, so Boston eventually got the nod.

Without question, Boston feels like more of an event than the other two; which as a New Yorker, kills me to say. Locals take great pride in the event. The city is a cool, big city that is still manageable to get around. The course has history and character to it.

Not the be all and end all of running; but I kind of get the hype now, even if that hype is partially (mostly?) self-perpetuating at this point.

Letsbicker.com wrote:

It is big because it requires a qualifying time. The only marathon in the US to do so. No mind that it used to be much more difficult to get in.

People always post that "it used to be much more difficult" but that's only a little true.

For the men's open division in 2017's race, the cutoff was 3:02:51.

The only time it was "much more difficult" was at the heart of the first running boom. From 1980 to 1986 the qualifying time standard was 2:50:59, so yeah, that's almost 12 minutes faster, but that was just seven years. For the three years leading up, and the three years after (1977 to 1979 and 1987 to 1989) it was 3:00:59, not even two minutes faster.

For the 80 races from 1897 to 1976 it was dramatically easier to qualify than today, and for the thirteen races 1990 to 2012 it was substantially easier than today.

So yeah, in 121 runnings of the Boston Marathon, only the 13 races during the peak of the first running boom had tougher qualifying standards than the last four years, and only seven of those years had significantly tougher standards.

Doping works wrote:

Letsbicker.com wrote:

It is big because it requires a qualifying time. The only marathon in the US to do so. No mind that it used to be much more difficult to get in. You still have to qualify, so that requires a modicum of commitment. to the average joe (runner or non-runner) completing a marathon is a big deal. Making a BQ is 5X bigger.

This is what its really all about. Forgetting the charity runners who make up a fraction of the runners, you have to qualify using a MARATHON not a half time or a 10k.

I understand that the times aren't too hard but calling a 3:00 marathoner a hobby jogger is harsh.

Harsh yes, but it would bring some quality back to the event. Bring back the 2:50 qualifier for men 18-39, and have the women qualify at 3:12 (12.9% slower, which is a reasonable difference). All age group qualifiers get in by equivalent age grade standards. Plus, start the dang thing 2 hours earlier so warm weather is less of a factor. MBGA!

If you want it to go back to the old ways start it two hours later. That's another great thing. Boston isn't made for you to run fast. You run fast to get to Boston. And yes I know NYC isn't fast but you get the point.

As far as the faster standards I'd be open to dropping it to 3hr. If you drop it too much the fields shrink and the event is less than it can be. I'd be interested in how many runners qualify with times under the 2:50 or equivalent number you outlined. Shrinking the field to under 20,000 runners or increasing charities won't help the race

oneeyedwillie wrote:

Jordan Hasay used a half time to qualify

I don't know why people keep saying this. Her 2017 prague half marathon was outside the qualifying window for the 2017 boston marathon--if they were to even look at it

that half marathon would have been

a) the wrong distance

and

b) in the 2018 boston marathon window of qualifying only

Jruns wrote:

I'm genuinely curious. I don't understand why. Like half the threads posted on the site during October to April are about boston.

Nope! October and November is Turkey Trot discussions and often the gobble gobble m-f-er is out in full force.

I haven't run Boston, and won't until I finish up school. But I can tell you that the big draw to Boston for me is the history. When I run/watch major races I am able to vision the classic races that happened before me. I know that when I eventually run Boston, I will be able to picture Salazar and Beardsley turning right on Hereford and left on Boylston. It's just one of those things. I also understand and respect everybody who has ran a marathon before and I don't want to be somebody who comes in and just wants to "complete" the marathon. I want to race the marathon.

middle aged hobby jogger wrote:

oneeyedwillie wrote:

Jordan Hasay used a half time to qualify

I don't know why people keep saying this. Her 2017 prague half marathon was outside the qualifying window for the 2017 boston marathon--if they were to even look at it

that half marathon would have been

a) the wrong distance

and

b) in the 2018 boston marathon window of qualifying only

John Hancock athletes don't need to "qualify".

Change @ Park wrote:

John Hancock athletes don't need to "qualify".

The Brojos get email from John Hancock, apparently. Amazingly the guy has been deceased for 215 years, but somehow is still sending emails (Nevermind that electricity, let alone computers and the internet had yet to be invented at the time of his passing.

Preston Garvey wrote:

I haven't run Boston, and won't until I finish up school. But I can tell you that the big draw to Boston for me is the history. When I run/watch major races I am able to vision the classic races that happened before me. I know that when I eventually run Boston, I will be able to picture Salazar and Beardsley turning right on Hereford and left on Boylston. It's just one of those things. I also understand and respect everybody who has ran a marathon before and I don't want to be somebody who comes in and just wants to "complete" the marathon. I want to race the marathon.

"I want to race the marathon" Very good young man there is still hope in the world. I am proud of you.