Why is boston so popular

It's the mystique. The average Joe/Jane thinks it is very hard to qualify for Boston and just a step away from qualifying for the Olympic Trials. This is why Boston medals, Boston jackets, and so on are such a big deal.

Runners perpetuate this idea. The fact that it isn't even true that you have to run a qualifying time and can enter by joining a charity jogging team, is kept pretty quite. This is so the Boston runner can continue to be seen as a real athlete by the general public.

1. It is the oldest annual marathon.

2. It has name recognition among even non-runners.

3. It is as American as apple pie, baseball, and the 4th of July.

4. You have to qualify to get in (I'm ignoring the charity exceptions)

5. The hundreds of thousands of people who come out to cheer you on and give you water, beer, oranges, etc.

6. The people of Boston. They have a reputation for being an unhappy lot but during marathon weekend they are hospitable and gracious.

7. From the rolling hills in Hopkinton to the left on Bosylton, I find the course to be beautiful.

8. It's the only spring major in the US.

9. It has a very deep field of serious recreational runners so you have other people to run with.

10. Boston is pretty easy to get to for most Americans.

11. The jacket and other merchandise with the ubiquitous unicorn logo.

12. It is a well-run event.

13. Boston is a cool city with lots of stuff to do.

I could go on.

oneeyedwillie wrote:

Jordan Hasay used a half time to qualify

Jordan didn't qualify, she was invited.

SomedayBoston wrote:

oneeyedwillie wrote:

Jordan Hasay used a half time to qualify

Jordan didn't qualify, she was invited.

This.

And if you anyone remains worried that she wasn't fast enough to be allowed to run Boston (ignoring charity runners and the hundreds of other invites), look up her time.

She was fast enough wrote:

SomedayBoston wrote:

Jordan didn't qualify, she was invited.

This.

And if you anyone remains worried that she wasn't fast enough to be allowed to run Boston (ignoring charity runners and the hundreds of other invites), look up her time.

Jordan Hasay most definitely showed she was worthy of the invite.

I'm sure the race is fun with the huge crowds of spectators, but the 10am start on what can often be a warm day makes it unappealing to me as a sub-sub-elite (a couple sub-2:30s). I don't run marathons for place -- I want to faster than I did last time. I'm not going to train for 6 months to show up for a 10am start with temps of 70F.

Not that 7am would always be significantly perfect, but at least give yourself a chance.

That said, if I lived within driving distance of Boston I might give it more thought.

Here is some of the appeal. The race isn't for pansies who want to run a "good time". It's a race, it's one of the most challenging marathons in the US. It can be hot, cold, the course has hills at the end. Racers know this and appreciate the challenge. I know all sorts of folks who try and place in the top 100, 500, 1000. So you are competing against the best, not worried about the time. Saying you ran top 100 means a lot, even if it was a 2:30.

qrs complex wrote:

I don't run marathons for place -- I want to faster than I did last time.

At some point, my dear, you won't be setting PRs. You can run Boston then.

Or get jealous of your officemate that gets ton of adulation for running Boston even though he was 40 minutes slower than you at the 16th annual Podunk Marathon.

Daniel A. Gore, Esq. wrote:

The fact that it isn't even true that you have to run a qualifying time and can enter by joining a charity jogging team, is kept pretty quite. This is so the Boston runner can continue to be seen as a real athlete by the general public.

Typical LRC paranoia. Total bullsh*t.

I live and work in Boston and even here the vast majority of non-runners I've talked to about the marathon have no idea that it even has qualifying times. Many people (especially older people, but not always) don't know that a marathon represents a specific distance. And many people (especially younger people) believe that every non-professional runner runs for some sort of charity purpose in every race.

Non-runners don't care about times, qualifications, athleticism, hobbyjogging vs running, or any of the other stuff that people on this forum care about. There is no plot to keep the runner down. The world at large simply does not pay any attention.

QRS -

Yes, you won't run your fastest time at Boston compared to most other marathons.

But, you will find the best competition and largest collection of sub 2:30 guys in one marathon for you to compete with and test yourself against.

That is one of the best parts about this race. Unlike most other majors, in Boston, there is always someone to race against even if you're not one of the top professionals but still take the training seriously.

Interesting. When I talk to non-runners about Boston, one of the first questions that is almost always asked is: "don't you have to qualify for that?"

nope..... wrote:

Daniel A. Gore, Esq. wrote:

The fact that it isn't even true that you have to run a qualifying time and can enter by joining a charity jogging team, is kept pretty quite. This is so the Boston runner can continue to be seen as a real athlete by the general public.

Typical LRC paranoia. Total bullsh*t.

I live and work in Boston and even here the vast majority of non-runners I've talked to about the marathon have no idea that it even has qualifying times.

Then Boston is not for you, not just because of the start time, but because of the topography of the course. Go run Chicago instead if you are there solely for time (where I ran nearly 4 minutes faster than I ran at Boston). You can come back to the idea of running Boston when you get a little older, your chances at faster times are behind you, and you start considering your place within your age group or among master runners, etc.Alternatively, you can go out and race for place. At your ability level, you won't be in the mix for prize money, but you could choose something like "Top 100" or "Faster than the #10 masters runner" or "Faster than the #10 woman" or "I want to pass 10 of the seeded runners" something along those lines.

qrs complex wrote:

I'm sure the race is fun with the huge crowds of spectators, but the 10am start on what can often be a warm day makes it unappealing to me as a sub-sub-elite (a couple sub-2:30s). I don't run marathons for place -- I want to faster than I did last time. I'm not going to train for 6 months to show up for a 10am start with temps of 70F.

Not that 7am would always be significantly perfect, but at least give yourself a chance.

That said, if I lived within driving distance of Boston I might give it more thought.

Boston is not the only marathon to require a qualifying time... and not even the only major! NYC required 2:53/3:13 (men/women) to qualify on time this year.

Much more stringent than Boston! I think Boston is more popular because the qualifying standards are actually achievable for most hobbyjoggers who give a damn.

The NYC time is not a mandatory time like Boston is (other than the charity bibs and special invites at Boston). It is simply a way to get a nearly guaranteed entry (those who hit the qualifying time get into a smaller lottery than those who apply without a qualifying time - although I have never heard of someone not getting in when hitting the qualifying time).

Unlike most people on LRC, it was not easy for me to get my first BQ. I actually thought Boston was the be-all-end-all; I expected it to be the highlight of my life (or at least, my running life). Qualifying was a big deal for me.

But then I went there in 2011 (awesome weather) and even though I PR'd that year, I realized that the reality was somewhat disappointing. Coming from Canada, the cost to stay in a hotel in Boston, especially with the exchange rate, is astronomical. The start time is very late compared to when I usually do my long runs, and the course itself is narrow and nothing to write home about.

This year was even worse as I almost ran a PW due to the heat. It was my last Boston.

The spectators are second to none (even Chicago and NYC) and some of my friends who are a lot faster than me love doing Boston every year because of the crowds and history and all that. But I guess I just feel that it's really not THE be all and end all.

Also ....... The depth at NYC is light compared to Boston.

Top 500 in New York, 2016: 2:54:38

Top 500 in Boston, 2017: 2:48:41 (a 2:54:38 would have earned you 873rd place in Boston)

Jruns wrote:

I don't get it. Why is it THE spring marathon to qualify and race for?

H-I-S-T-O-R-Y

EXACTLY!!!

I didn't really know myself until I trained and ran it. WOW! It is AMAZING! Absolutely amazing.

Oh yes, AJ the left at Boylston...

I used to love running into the turn to take the left. Just before you see thee turn....I would see people hanging out of the windows, especially above BR's store in Cleveland Circle...and guys on top of the intersection traffic lights...crazy

Boston is the deepest most competitive age group marathon, bar none.